Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Local Government Reorganisation

Mr. Winterton: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, on behalf of the residents of the Parish of Poynton with Worth, in Cheshire. The vast majority of the residents of this rural parish in Cheshire wish to object most strongly to the Government's proposals in the Local Government Bill to include this rural parish in the greater Manchester area under local government reorganisation.
The Petition, which I hope you will accept, Mr. Speaker, represents a very wide shade of opinion in this village. There are 6,658 names on the Petition, representing 83·6 per cent. of the total electorate of the area and representing 95·5 per cent. of those available who wish to comment on the reform of local government in England. The residents of the area feel very strongly and hope that a democratic decision will be reached by the House, so that under the reorganisation this rural parish is retained in the County of Cheshire.
The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he now intends to take further action in cases where local authorities have recently decided to stop schemes for the sale of council houses to sitting tenants; and what advice he will give especially in those instances where tenants have already been invited to enter into a purchase contract.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): With regard to the first half of the Question I am reluctant to reduce the freedom of local authorities to manage their affairs, but the exercise of powers vested in them is a matter between them and their electors in the first place and their electors will shortly have an opportunity to pronounce. With regard to the second part of the Question local authorities must be the judges of the extent to which the public faith has already been committed. By the same token they should make sure that that faith is honoured.

Mr. Rost: I am grateful for that answer. May I urge my right hon. Friend to make that reply widely known to the council at Long Eaton in Derbyshire, where the sale of council houses is now being stopped although promises were previously made? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that unless the Long Eaton Council proceeds with its promises to its council house tenants to sell council houses, the capital will not be available with which to build new council houses in order to provide them for those who are really in need?

Mr. Amery: I am deeply shocked by what my hon. Friend tells me of the attitude of the council of Long Eaton, and I hope that the electors of that local authority will take the earliest opportunity of putting matters right.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some councils have stopped selling council houses not because they are against the principle of


ownership but because of the tremendous social burden that they have in housing and because of the added burden of building increasing numbers of houses which are needed for ordinary working-class people to rent? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with progress in the public sector, which is very important in places such as Merseyside?

Mr. Amery: I take the hon. Member's point but, on the whole, experience shows that when a council house tenant is not allowed to buy, he usually remains a council house tenant, so there is no loss to the local authority by selling off the house. Usually it is a gain, particularly in areas of stress if they make use of the much improved slum clearance subsidy which we are making available under the Housing Finance Bill.

Litter

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many convictions there were under the Litter Act, 1958, in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the average fine imposed.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): In 1970, the last year for which figures are available, 1,777 persons were found guilty of offences under the Litter Acts. Information on average fines is being obtained and I will let my hon. Friend have this as soon as it is available.

Mr. Montgomery: Although he has not got the figures, would my hon. Friend agree that he would expect the average fine to be quite small? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday launched a great campaign to do more about this problem of litter, does my hon. Friend consider that stronger action could be taken by the Department to try to do something about this very serious problem?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has very substantially increased the maximum fine. In addition, he has made a very substantial increase in the moneys available from the Government to the Keep Britain Tidy organisation. At the conference we had yesterday,

a number of important practical suggestions were made and they will be followed up by my Department.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this question, like most of these things, is one of enforcement? Is he further aware that there are thousands of instances of litter being deliberately dumped in my borough and in most of the East London boroughs and that when enforcement is asked for it is refused? Will he do something to see that the law is enforced? That is the answer.

Mr. Griffiths: Enforcement is a matter in the first instance for the police, whose resources are limited. But it is open to any citizen, including the hon. Gentleman if he wishes, to bring a prosecution.

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the maximum fine that can be imposed under the Litter Act, 1958; if he is satisfied that this continues to provide an adequate deterrent; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The maximum fine which can be imposed has been increased by the Dangerous Litter Act, 1971, from £10 to £100. I hope that this increase, together with the other influences at work, will result in a visible reduction in litter, but only experience will tell.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend think that, either by publicity or by official advice, magistrates might be made aware that their powers are there to be used? Does he think it might be a good thing if they were given the alternative power to require offenders to indulge in a spell of clearing up litter as an effective deterrent?

Mr. Griffiths: Matters of the courts are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will draw his attention to what my hon. Friend has said.

Sir R. Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who went to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Malaysia last year found that in the cities of Malaysia and Singapore there was no litter at all


because, I think, of the possibility of a heavy fine for leaving litter? Could my hon. Friend make inquiries into whether anything can be learned from that?

Mr. Griffiths: The maximum fine has been increased from £10 to £100. It is really a matter of enforcement, but also a matter for every person to think carefully before he throws away his litter in everyone else's back yard.

Industrial and Domestic Wastes (Recovery)

Mr. Laurance Reed: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to imposing a statutory duty on local authorities to recover and recycle industrial and domestic wastes generated within their districts.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): Wherever recovery of material from industrial and domestic wastes makes economic and environmental sense, I favour the adoption of practical recycling policies. Working parties on which my Department is represented are studying waste disposal problems arising from the growth in the use of some materials, and their reports may throw fresh light on the practicabilities of recycling.

Mr. Reed: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely disappointing that only about 2 per cent. of the 14 million tons of domestic waste generated in this country each year is presently recovered? Does he agree that there is need to recognise that the reclaimer is the ally of the conservationist?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I recognise that. Under the local government reorganisation, instead of 1,200 authorities dealing with refuse disposal, there will be only 30 or 40, which will be able to install the proper equipment.

Mr. Freeson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a much greater drive towards the establishment of district heating, incorporating disposal of refuse as part of the heat producing process, would be a major contribution over the years if it were adopted as policy?

Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, work has been going on in the Department on this problem. There are snags and difficulties about it but certainly an advance could be made in this direction.

Housing Improvement Grants

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total number of improvement grants awarded each quarter of the last two years, by housing tenure.

Mr. Amery: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the Official Report.

Mr. Meacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rate of improvement is still lagging behind the rate of obsolescence, so that we are still nationally moving backwards in housing? Will he adopt a series of target dates for specified rehabilitation for all house owners, especially private landlords, who are the biggest laggards, as the only way to ensure that there is decent housing universally by 1980?

Mr. Amery: We are doing a great deal better than the Labour Government did. I am glad to say that 24 per cent. more grants were approved for private landlords in 1971 compared with 1970. We are doing all we can to encourage all owners to take advantage of the generous grants available, and in the assisted areas, in the North particularly, the take-up is extremely impressive—indeed resulting, in spite of local unemployment, in a shortage of skilled labour.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the assisted areas. Since nine months of the 24-month period allowed in the Housing Act, 1971, have already elapsed, will he take power to extend the period for the new intermediate areas announced last week so that they can have a full24-month period for their increased improvement grant availability?

Mr. Amery: I take the point but I am bound to say that had we not put a time limit on the grant, the take-up would not have been as good as it has been.

Following are the figures:

HOUSE IMPROVEMENT GRANTS APPROVED BY TENURE, ENGLAND AND WALES




Public Sector
Owner-Occupied
Private Sector Housing Associations
Landlords


1970—


1st quarter
…
6,641
13,485
779
7,841


2nd quarter
…
10,655
18,020
863
8,973


3rd quarter
…
13,903
21,122
1,443
9,744


4th quarter
…
10,761
20,628
979
10,720


1971—


1st quarter
…
13,230
16,858
1,243
9,619


2nd quarter
…
13,168
19,799
1,134
10,550


3rd quarter
…
14,481
23,074
1,434
12,105


4th quarter
…
20,721
25,193
2,283
13,900

Toxic Waste

Mr. Coombs: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many convictions there were in 1970 and 1971 for disposing of poisonous wastes in England.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Until the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill starts to operate, it has been impracticable to make any meaningful calculations of convictions for the dumping of toxic matter.

Mr. Coombs: In view of the new laws which have been brought in, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the courts can in practice impose fines big enough to prove a real deterrent?

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill will receive Royal Assent later this week. I am sure that under that Measure the very severe fines and prospect of imprisonment will act as an effective deterrent.

Old Motor Vehicles (Disposal)

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will study the scheme devised by local authorities in Bedfordshire, a copy of which is in his possession, for a levy to cover the cost of disposing of permanently retired cars.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend has already done so. I am afraid however that the benefits of the scheme would not justify the extra staff needed to operate it.

Mr. Chapman: Although there is legislation, under the Civic Amenities Act, 1967, to try to deal with the problem, does

not my hon. Friend think that the problem of old vehicles being left in public places in worsening? If he feels that he cannot meet the suggestions in the Bedfordshire scheme, does he not think it urgent to strengthen the law further to stop this practice?

Mr. Griffiths: Of course there is a problem, with about 1 million new cars being registered each year and a similar number being scrapped each year. As my hon. Friend suggests, we must look for remedies.

Scheduled Buildings, Norwich

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will confirm the preservation order on the additional properties recently added to the scheduled list of buildings in the Timberhill area of Norwich; and if he will make a statement on the preservation of this area.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My right hon. Friend has today given another 15 buildings in Timberhill the protection of statutory listing, and the local planning authority is being informed accordingly.

Dr. Stuttaford: Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer will give most people in Norwich considerable satisfaction, as we feel that the centre of our ancient city must not be sacrificed by compulsory purchase orders imposed by a local authority not for the public good but for private commercial gain?

Mr. Page: Yes, Sir. My Department has worked closely with the local planning authority in listing these buildings.

Environmental Pollution (Report)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Mr. Peter Walker: I did so on 7th March.

Mr. Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people feel grave disappointment at the fact that the second report of this commission on such a vital and important matter, issued 12 months after the first, contained only eight pages? Is he assured that sufficient back-up staff, with scientific and technical expertise, is available to the commission?

Mr. Walker: Sir Eric Ashby is chairman of the commission and whenever he requires further assistance he contacts the Department and has never been refused. This is a good commission. It was appointed by the Labour Government. While the second report came out 12 months after the first one, a great deal of work is going on by the commission all the time which will be the subject of other reports.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the next report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.

Mr. Peter Walker: I understand from the Royal Commission that it hopes to publish a report later this year on its study of the pollution of estuaries and coastal waters.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to reinforce clearly the point he made a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) that the second report does not represent a full 12 months' work by the commission, which has done a great deal of additional work? Nevertheless, since there is so much to be done so quickly, will he ensure that it has all available resources to get on with it?

Mr. Walker: Whenever the commission has approached me for resources they have been forthcoming. We work

in close harmony with it and we will be pleased to provide any further resources it requires.

Local Education Authorities (Fare-Paying Passengers)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that the ability of traffic commissioners to forbid local education authorities from carrying fare-paying passengers works effectively; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I am not aware of any difficulty.

Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some education authorities have great difficulty in permitting the sale of fare places to passengers on their local education authority buses? This practice of selling places to fare-paying passengers is forbidden by the traffic commissioners and it makes nonsense when half empty school buses go trundling around the countryside with would-be fare-paying passengers forbidden to enter them.

Mr. Peyton: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend. The matter is one which I hope will be dealt with in forthcoming legislation.

Motorways

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to enable an early start on the construction of the section of the M18 motorway between Hatfield and the West Moor interchange.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): My right hon. Friend yesterday announced his decision on the whole section of the motorway from Hatfield to Wadworth. Construction will be undertaken as soon as practicable.

Dr. Marshall: How soon will fresh proposals be published for the trunk road link between West Moor interchange on the M18 and the existing A18 trunk road?

Mr. Heseltine: We are looking at this and will publish the details as soon as we can, following yesterday's announcement.

Mr. Cockeram: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of the fact that the mileage of new motorways opened in the three years 1969, 1970 and 1971 was over 50 per cent, greater than the mileage expected to be opened in the three years 1972, 1973 and 1974; and if he will now authorise an early start on further construction in order to avoid a rundown in this industry.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: There is no prospect of a rundown in the road construction industry. On the contrary public spending on the new construction and improvement of roads is expected to increase significantly in the coming financial year, as will be seen from the Supply Estimates 1972–73.

Mr. Cockeram: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the gestation period of a motorway is longer than that of an elephant and that the dramatic drop in the construction programme and completions planned over the next three years is causing dismay to the motoring public?

Mr. Heseltine: That presumably is why we do not call them trunk roads. [Laughter.] I can assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of all the complexities of preparing schemes. That is why we prepare sufficient so that we have enough to be getting on with whatever difficulties we come across.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the cost of building motorways from the Midlands to the Ports of Hull, Grimsby, Felixstowe, Harwich and Southampton.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Road schemes already under construction or in preparation will provide a network of modern high standard routes connecting the Midlands with these ports at a cost of some £300 million. As my right hon. Friend announced last week, action is in hand to accelerate schemes of key importance for access to the major East Coast ports as well as motorway schemes connecting Coventry and Leicester and Birmingham and Nottingham.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he realise that it is of crucial importance to Midlands industry, especially when we

join the European Economic Community, that it should have quick and easy access not only to the East Coast ports but also to those in the Humber estuary?

Mr. Heseltine: That is why we made the statement we did last week.

Dr. Stuttaford: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need for linking Norwich to the East Coast ports, not only those listed in the Question but Yarmouth and Lynn as well?

Mr. Heseltine: I realise the importance of these ports to that area and I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that I shall be visiting Norwich to discuss the matter further next month.

Mr. Harold Walker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of making the Hatfield to Wadworth section of the M18 motorway.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: About £14 million.

Mr. Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision his right hon. Friend announced yesterday that the M18 motorway will cleave its way through the residential part of the Borough of Doncaster instead of bypassing the town, for no other reason than to save money, has caused deep dismay in our town? The decision is treated as a prime piece of ministerial madness. Does it not mock and defy all the Minister's repeated statements about his concern for safeguarding the environment?

Mr. Heseltine: All these matters were carefully considered at a public inquiry, and my right hon. Friend took his decision in the light of all the circumstances.

Urban Transport

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with local authorities about urban transport systems, including computer controlled vehicles, monorails, pedestrian conveyors and travellators; and in which cities and towns he is considering the possibility of operating prototype and experimental systems.

Mr. Peyton: The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has over the past


year discussed with a number of authorities the scope for possible applications of such systems as part of the continuing appraisal of various means of urban transport. I have no immediate plans for experimental schemes in cities. Such projects could only follow an assessment of the results of the studies which have been launched.

Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact that it is four years since we had the Kings Norton Report on cars in cities? Are we not now faced with increased congestion from passenger and other motor vehicles in provincial cities as well as in London? Can my right hon. Friend say with which provincial cities he has held preliminary discussions and what has been the nature of the discussions held with Sheffield in particular?

Mr. Peyton: I would prefer to write to my hon. Friend about the latter part of his question. As to the general issue he has raised, I certainly acknowledge that it is important. It is a subject demanding careful preparation before large sums of money are laid out on what might be rather speculative projects.

Mr. Bob Brown: Since the right hon. Gentleman is on record as having talked about the need to improve urban environment and urban life, can he gives us an assurance that the proposals from the Tyneside Passenger Transport Authority for a new tube route through the city will receive early consideration and the maximum possible grant?

Mr. Peyton: In answer to the first part of the question, "Yes, Sir." I would not like to promise the maximum grant at this moment.

Mr. Michael Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve the working of public transport, especially buses, in urban areas by selectively deterring other traffic; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: Local authorities must decide for themselves on the best mix of public and private transport to meet local needs. If that involves deterring certain classes of vehicle, they already have powers to do so.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing anger

and impatience at the spectacle of our city centres being cluttered up by cars and vans emitting poisonous fumes? Cannot he publish without delay his Department's study of urban traffic problems?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, the urban motorway report will be expected this year. I think I must say to my hon. Friend that while I entirely share the view he has expressed I believe that there is a great responsibility upon local authorities, which have very great powers. Much depends upon their initiative. They will certainly have the support of my Department.

Mr. Mulley: While accepting that there is a responsibility upon local authorities may I ask the Minister to consider whether he could give any more guidance to local authorities, perhaps in some cases financial help and in others technical assistance, because in many cases for a relatively small outlay really good traffic management schemes, with priority lanes for public transport, can have beneficial advantages out of proportion to the cost? I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that the former Minister of Transport issued such advice.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I think he is entirely right in what he has said. The Government attached considerable importance to that advice and to imaginative schemes and we are currently looking at proposals about how these could be improved.

River Dee (Barrage)

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he reaches a decision on the Dee Barrage, he will ensure that any development or reclamation of the estuary for new land or fresh water will not affect detrimentally the environment of Cheshire and North Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: The effect of any development on the environment of Cheshire and North Wales is one of the considerations which I am studying with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Tilney: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this multi-purpose and imaginative scheme will not only prove profitable but will increase the beauty of the area and also provide amenities which the North West so badly needs?

Mr. Walker: It is an important scheme but until full consideration has been given to all the implications I cannot give a detailed comment.

Mr. Barry Jones: Why should my constituents and the rest of North Wales be penalised by this tardy example of government by delay? Is it not a fact that the possibility now is that More cambe Bay may get a barrage first rather than the Dee? Just how split is the Cabinet on this issue?

Mr. Walker: I have not detected any split of any degree on this issue.

Land Prices

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now list the further initiatives taken by the Government about land prices.

Mr. Graham Page: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8th March.
The preliminary assessment of results of the measures already taken warrants an intensification of those measures.—[Vol. 832, c. 1429–31.]

Mr. Willey: Is the Minister aware that according to the building societies land costs now amount to over 30 per cent. of the price of houses and that over the last year the price of houses increased by an all-time record of 21 per cent.? Is he further aware that the National Federation of Master Builders is alleging that this may well prejudice the building programme? In view of this, will the Minister take emergency action now?

Mr. Page: The 30 per cent. to which the right hon. Gentleman refers relates to land in the South East. Over the country as a whole it is something less than 20 per cent. I appreciate that in the South East great problems arise. What is emerging from the measures we have taken, from the working parties of local authorities and developers, is that the Government have for the first time laid down areas where development is welcome in the South East regional strategy. Not many developers seem to have read or realised the import of that: there is land available for development in those major and medium areas.

Mr. Evelyn King: Would my hon. Friend recognise none the less that it is

not only a grave problem but the gravest facing his Department? Will he accept that the release of land is certainly a major factor and that local authorities cannot regard this as a purely local problem? It is a national problem. Will he ensure above all—this would help a lot—that statistics are made available about how much land is being released?

Mr. Page: It is not only how much land is being released for planning but how much is coming forward for actual building. This is what we are investigating and I can assure my hon. Friend that it is treated as a national and not a local matter.

Mr. John Silkin: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) on 22nd July, 1970, gave as his reason for abolishing betterment levy the fact that it would bring down the price of land? This has not happened. On the contrary the price of land has risen to a figure never before known. Does not this mean not only that the policy must be intensified but that it must be radically altered and the price of land brought under control?

Mr. Page: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is proposing that we should bring back betterment levy. I can assure him that we will not do that. We are taking steps to see that land is made available for building not only through planning but from those who are holding on to it.

East Midlands Economic Planning Council

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what day the Minister for Local Government and Development plans to meet the East Midlands Economic Planning Council.

Mr. Graham Page: In order to obtain the maximum possible benefit from the visit I have decided to defer it until 23rd June, when the economic planning council will be meeting in Nottingham.

Sir G. de Freitas: When the Minister does visit the council will he look at the economic evidence which induced the


chairman, the Duke of Rutland, to recommend that for economic reasons new industries should be allowed to come to Corby, Northants, even at the expense of Peterborough, Welling borough and other expanding towns nearby?

Mr. Page: As a new town receiving London overspill Corby has some degree of priority for mobile industry within the context of regional policies. I do not think that further treatment would be justified at present.

Box Girder Bridges

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to report on surveys so far carried out to establish the safety of box girder bridges; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Graham Page: Design appraisals have been completed on 35 of the traffic restricted steel box girder bridges. Six of these have been strengthened to comply with the Merrison rules and together with a further 20 shown to comply have been freed from restriction. Strengthening of the other nine is in progress or due to start shortly. Appraisals of the remaining 16 restricted bridges are not yet complete.

Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research at Imperial College suggests that the surveys so far carried out to establish the safety of box girder bridges are largely a waste of time and that the research is providing answers different from the textbooks assumptions? Does he not think that the strengthening of the important and complex structure that is Tinsley Viaduct—which has yet to be determined, much less to be carried out—must be called into question by those findings at Imperial College?

Mr. Page: No. An article in The Guardian threw a question on the Merrison rules. It was Imperial College which immediately came out with a statement in support of the Merrison rules and said that it was right we should apply them.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the result of these delays is that a vital motorway bridge has not been built in Bristol, with the result that traffic has to be re-routed over the Clifton Suspension Bridge leading to massive

traffic jams stretching back into Bristol, West? Will he consider the possibility of a temporary grant to the trustees of the bridge so they can remove the tolls and thus facilitate the flow of traffic during peak holiday periods for this summer only?

Mr. Page: I will certainly look into this. What my hon. Friend calls delay is proper caution over the possibility of unstrengthened bridges.

Pollution and Effluent (Secrecy of Reports)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to complete his discussions with representatives of industry on the question of secrecy in relation to reports on pollution and effluent by his inspectors.

Mr. Peter Walker: As soon as possible.

Mr. Dalyell: How does this excess of departmental wisdom come about? Industrial competition is no longer a good reason.

Mr. Walker: We have had the debates on the Bill and we wanted to obtain the maximum disclosure, but balanced with common sense, and we are continuing talks to that effect now.

Motor Vehicles (Surface Water Spray)

Mr. Warren: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department is conducting or has commissioned into methods of restricting the spray thrown up by vehicles in wet weather.

Mr. Peyton: The Transport and Road Research Laboratory is examining means of reducing surface water.

Mr. Warren: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am delighted to hear he is doing something about it but that I wish he would accelerate the programme, because there is a very considerable design problem about which I would like the Government to be laying down safety criteria as soon as possible?

Mr. Peyton: Yes, I share my hon. Friend's desire, but it would be very easy in a matter like this to produce a lot of rather bogus suggestions which look like action but which could be totally ineffective and rather annoying.

Environmental Improvement (Youth and Voluntary Workers)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the report of the working party inquiring into the rôle of youth and voluntary workers on the improvement of the environment.

Mr. Peter Walker: I intend to publish the reports of all four Stockholm Conference working parties in early May.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the report specifically says about the Night Assemblies Bill currently in Committee that it is potentially oppressive? Is not this the reason why the right hon. Gentleman is not producing the report? Can he tell us how long it has been in his possession, and can he give us an assurance that he will publish it before the Night Assemblies Bill comes back to the House?

Mr. Walker: I am afraid that the hon. Member could not be more wrong. It was only this morning that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development quoted publicly the views of this report on the Night Assemblies Bill and announced that he was accepting proposals it was making.

Mr. Well beloved: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend published to the Standing Committee this morning chapter 11 of the report and that the chapter refers to the Night Assemblies Bill as being a totally oppressive Measure? Would he give advice to his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that perhaps he should withdraw the Bill in order that the Department might put forward a code of practice and conduct as recommended in the working party's report?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased that the hon. Member has made it perfectly clear to his hon. Friend that in fact there was no attempt to suppress the report—absolutely none. On the contrary, a statement was made to the effect that it will be published at the appropriate time. The question about the Bill is altogether another question.

Compensation Code (Small Businesses)

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following his review of the compensation code, he will introduce legislation to amend Section 63(2) of the Housing Act, 1957, so that compensation can be paid to traders left behind in areas depopulated by redevelopment schemes as distinct from slum clearance schemes.

Mr. Graham Page: We are looking at the problems of small businesses affected by new public works in our review.

Mr. Barnes: Would the Minister agree that this distinction in favour of those affected by slum clearance schemes as against those affected by redevelopment schemes really has very little meaning, and will he not agree that he has to justify this distinction in the context of the kind of redevelopment taking place at Brentford?

Mr. Page: Yes, particularly in the area of Brentford I realise the position, but it has an historical meaning and we are considering whether it still has a modern meaning as well.

Mr. John Silkin: I wonder whether the Minister might do something to speed things up. It is now 18 months since this whole question came up for review by the present Government. The Labour Government had already issued a report. Although the Secretary of State did not like it, we had got the report out.

Mr. Page: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have made use of that report and have studied it further in more depth. I am hoping for a report from the Urban Motorways Committee shortly so that it may be combined with our review of compensation.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the sad plight of owner-occupiers who are being offered derisory amounts by way of compensation in slum clearance areas, whereas their outstanding mortgages often amount to three or four times the amounts offered them?

Mr. Page: I do not think I shall be letting out any secret when I say that our provisions will deal with relief for people of that sort.

Learner Drivers (Instruction)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider making an order that a learner driver, before taking the driving test, must have had a minimum of eight hours instruction by an approved driving instructor.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Sir H. Harrison: I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the interests of road safety which is so dear to the heart of everyone in the House, as these approved driving instructors pass a very high-grade Ministry test, he will see that this is made a common factor in driving instruction to be more widely applied by everyone who wants to use a lethal weapon on the roads?

Mr. Peyton: I am aware of my hon. and gallant Friend's concern in the matter of road safety, and I share it, but I very much doubt whether such a measure would be justified. It would be exceedingly difficult to enforce and would, I think, in some cases bear very hardly on the individual.

Mr. Heffer: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered some sort of post-learner sign to be used for a year after a learner has passed his test? Is he aware that when I passed my test I hit everything in sight for the first couple of months? Based on my own experience I feel that it is not a bad idea, in the interest of the safety of post-learners and everyone else, that everybody on the roads should be aware of the fact that the post-learner is a new driver. I am sure this would be a great help towards road safety.

Mr. Peyton: I am sure the whole House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman for the interesting recollection of his personal experience. I am equally sure that the whole House will rejoice that not everybody does the same as he did. To answer his question, I have considered just such a measure as he has proposed. I will do so again. So far I have been deterred by the amount of administrative work involved, because I have not felt fully satisfied as to the benefit which would result.

Channel Tunnel

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further progress has been made in the planning and negotiations on the Channel Tunnel project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: Work on the studies is well in hand. I will make a statement when the results are available.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that statement will be eagerly awaited by many people, who I think will give a wholehearted welcome to the proposals, particularly the fact that there is to be a rail tunnel? Is he aware that the tunnel will bring considerable benefit to many regions? Can he say what complementary measures to link the Channel Tunnel with regional infrastructures he is taking or considering?

Mr. Peyton: It would take a great deal of time to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's question but I hope to make a statement on the subject to the House in due course. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his question. I know very well his enthusiasm for railways.

Vehicle Testing

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will direct the working party, which he has set up to review the present vehicle-testing system, to bring forward proposals for improving the methods of discovering defects inherent in certain types of vehicles, and passing on such information to vehicle-testing stations.

Mr. Peyton: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I am very pleased with that answer. Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that as there are some faults common to certain models of cars, such as the rear subframe of the 1963 Morris 1100, which can collapse without warning, at great expense and personal danger to the owner, the two procedures for disseminating information to the vehicle testers are obviously inadequate, as is evidenced by the number of faulty subframes which are undetected in M.O.T. tests?

Mr. Peyton: I am so glad to have given pleasure to my hon. Friend. As


to the dissemination of information, one of the problems of the modern world is that there is such a vast mass of information available, much of it totally useless, that the channels for disseminating it sometimes get slightly clogged.

Housing Land

Mr. O'Halloran: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the cost of land for housing purposes per acre in the greater London area; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: Land costs vary so widely in London that any estimate of average cost would not be meaningful. Because of the shortage of land the cost is generally high but I shall ensure as far as possible that the housing programmes of London authorities are not affected by this. I am also co-operating with several authorities in findings ways of making land available at reasonable cost to provide houses for owner occupation by Londoners. The main vehicle in this has been the London Action Group.
May I here pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) for all his work in housing as Under-Secretary. He is promoted to a post of honour and danger, though I cannot believe that anyone in Ireland would ever shoot a Guinness.

Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that available land in Islington is costing over £150,000 an acre and that houses which three or four years ago would sell for £5,000 to £6,000 are costing up to £20,000? What is the Government's policy on this ruthless exploitation in land and house prices?

Mr. Amery: The London Action Group is seeking first to identify where land is available for new building, whether by local authorities or private developers. When it has reported, as I hope it will shortly, I shall consider what action to take next to fulfil the possibilities which its scrutiny and reports should open to me.

Mr. Frank Allaun: But even if more land is made available, will not the price still remain exorbitant? If planning permission is given, do not potato fields turn overnight into gold mines? What solution have the Government to this price

problem other than some form of public ownership, which for ideological reasons the present Government are unlikely to apply?

Mr. Amery: I do not think it is a question of ideology. The main point is to get more houses built. The more houses built, the less will be the pressure on the housing market.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now reply to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran)? The right hon. Gentleman was asked about land and property prices. He answered in terms of seeking to make more land available. Is he aware that if land is rezoned for building purposes that pushes up the price even further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has just pointed out? What action do the Government propose taking at least to contain the rate of increase if not to bring the rise in prices to a halt?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman's sense of economics is very curious. If more land is made available and more houses are built, the price is likely to be stabilised.

Mrs. Fenner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the consultations between his regional officers, local planning authorities and developers on the release of land for building.

Mr. Graham Page: Valuable contacts have been made in all regions and the difficulties are being tackled. This regional work will continue for as long as it is needed.

Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend is aware how vital it is to release more land, judging from his answers to questions on stabilising the cost of house building. I had hoped that he would have been able to answer my Question in terms of acreages.

Mr. Page: My hon. Friend will know, as she represents Rochester and Chatham, that the Maidstone-Medway area is one of the immediate growth areas in which land is available if developers will apply.

Mr. Denis Howell: As the Government's case for the abolition of the Land Commission was that it would bring down the price of land and provide more land for building, can the Minister tell us of any region where that has happened?

Mr. Page: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to restore the Land Commission, but it did no good at all. We are doing far better with the regional strategies and with the assistance of the local planning authorities.

Sir Bernard Braine: What action is my hon. Friend taking about those authorities which are failing to release sufficient white land for development in areas where there is acute pressure for more housing, as a result of which house prices are rocketing? I have South-East Essex particularly in mind.

Mr. Page: Every applicant can appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has said that he will favourably consider appeals in areas of major growth or medium growth indicated by the South-East regional strategy.

Option Mortgage Scheme

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now take steps to extend the option mortgage scheme to give those on low incomes 5 per cent. reduction in their mortgage interest payments.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir. The purpose of the option mortgage scheme is to equalise, as nearly as possible, the benefits of option mortgage subsidy and tax relief, and not to produce an advantage one way or the other.

Mr. Allaun: But if those on low incomes can manage to buy houses at all, they buy the less costly ones and, therefore, receive less help than the wealthy, when they should receive more. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many tenants are' now faced with very high rent increases and are forced into becoming owner-occupiers, which they cannot really afford, and therefore should receive additional help of the kind I suggest? Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously reconsider this proposal?

Mr. Amery: I do not think this subsidy is suitable for a discriminatory purpose. Its object is to put everyone as

far as possible on the same footing—the people who pay tax and therefore seek relief and the people who do not and therefore claim the subsidy. The introduction of means testing would multiply by several times the cost of administering the scheme.

Mr. McCrindle: In the light of changes into and out of the tax bracket, particularly out of it under the present Government, will my right hon. Friend consider greater flexibility in the option scheme by reducing from four years the period which must elapse before a man can move into or out of a mortgage option situation?

Mr. Amery: I have already secured a reduction in the period in question within which a person can switch. I will consider any representations my hon. Friend makes, but I rather doubt whether it is necessary to go beyond what I have already done.

Water Services (Reorganisation)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from the British Waterworks Association on his proposals for the reorganisation of water services; how he has answered these; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: The association has let me have its views on water reorganisation, among other matters, and these will be taken into account as part of the consultations on the Government's proposals.

Mr. Redmond: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing that he will take note of the consultations. Is he aware that local authority councillors and officials are not very keen on having the waterworks taken away from local government? Is he aware of the great disquiet felt by many local government officials who fear that the whole of local government might break under the strain of reorganising water services while reorganising the whole of local government as well?

Mr. Walker: Under my proposals for water reorganisation local government will play a leading part in the new water organisations that are created. If we took the view that we should not make changes because existing bodies did not


like to change, we should never have introduced any form of water reorganisation at all.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a sensible step forward would be to look at the whole regional position from the point of view of local government planning and bring water services into that concept?

Mr. Walker: But the river systems do not respect regional political boundaries. We are talking about the control of the whole river systems.

Maplin Airport

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the additional traffic on East Anglian roads likely to be generated by Maplin Airport and other developments in East Essex.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The effect on the road system generally of Maplin and its developments is being assessed as part of current planning work on the Maplin project; it is not expected that this effect will be significant on roads in the East Anglian planning region.

Mr. Lane: Is it not vital that new road schemes should take full account of this probable additional traffic, however large the addition may be, particularly in the Cambridge area which is on a direct line between Maplin and the East Midlands and the North of England?

Mr. Heseltine: I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking at this. It is better to conclude the investigation rather than for me to guess at the answer at this stage.

British Waterways

Mr. Fox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to denationalise British Water ways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: As already announced, the Government propose that responsibility for the British Waterways Board's waterways should be taken over by the new regional water authorities. Within this framework consultations are proceeding with the board as to the best form of management of the waterways.

Mr. Fox: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but my concern is for the

600 or so miles of direct waterway which is useless for the carriage of freight and which up to now has been lost as an amenity. Will my right hon. Friend accept that possibly the best way to bring these stretches back into use is to hive them off to organisations such as the Inland Waterways Association which want them for recreational purposes?

Mr. Peyton: All the purposes which my hon. Friend has in mind can well fall to be considered during the present discussions on the matter.

Mr. Denis Howell: How do the Government intend to ensure the maintenance of the canal system for recreational and other purposes and the spending of the necessary finance if they denationalise the system as the Question suggests? Is the Minister aware that hardly any organisation involved in the canal system supports the Government's proposal?

Mr. Peyton: I will not say that has been because of malice, but there have been some processes of obscuring the Government's intentions rather than shedding light upon them. The Government intend to set up regional water authorities and this will result in a great deal more money and larger resources being made available for the waterways.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is one common thread running through this Question, the Question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) and the Question on land drainage—namely, deep concern about the democratic position and proper representation under the proposed regional water authorities? Can we have an assurance that my right hon. Friend's mind is not closed to the possibility of an intermediate authority under the regional water authority?

Mr. Peyton: The Government's mind is not closed on this matter. Our aim, which I am sure is the aim of my hon. Friend, is to reach a sensible solution within the ambit of the policy which the Government have announced.

Dr. Marshall: With the denationalisation of the British Waterways Board, do the Government intend to hive off the commercial freight services?

Mr. Peyton: That is a possibility, but the future of the ancillary activities has not yet been decided.

Roads, Nottingham-King's Lynn

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving the roads connecting Nottingham and King's Lynn.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The City of Nottingham and King's Lynn are linked by the A52 and A17. The A52 is a principal road and is the responsibility of the local highway authorities. Three major improvement schemes on the A52 are in preparation and a fourth was added to the preparation list yesterday. From its junction with the A52 near Swineshead, the A17 trunk road is to be comprehensively improved to King's Lynn by the early 1980s.

Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that in this part of the country in recent years north-south communications have been raised to a high standard while east-west communications lag significantly behind? Will he add to his welcome announcement about new links between the Midlands and the East Coast ports and about this route an assurance that there will be a full programme for improving the flow of traffic between the Midlands and the East generally?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that there has been a major improvement in our proposals over the last few months. I am glad that my hon. Friend finds satisfaction in what I have sought to do.

Rural Roads (Damage by Vehicles)

Mr. Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he is making of the increasing damage being caused to rural unclassified roads and lanes by commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: A study of the whole problem of the effect of heavy vehicles on minor rural roads is to be undertaken by the County Councils Association on behalf of the local highway authorities which are responsible for these roads. My Department will co-operate in this study.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that

many of our rural unclassified roads and lanes are being heavily damaged by commercial vehicles using them as short cuts and that ditches are being pushed in, hedges ruined and verges desecrated? Will he treat this matter with a greater sense of urgency?

Mr. Peyton: I assure my hon. Friend that it is being treated with the utmost urgency and that all the matters to which he has drawn attention with such eloquence will be considered. Undoubtedly, what we have to move towards—and it must be comprehensive—is a policy of restricted roads.

Mr. Money: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation is now so serious in the eastern counties that we are being nicknamed the juggernaut country? Will he bear in mind the possibility of a great deal of this freight being moved off the roads and on to the railways?

Mr. Peyton: I very much doubt the last part of my hon. Friend's statement. I sympathise with him if he is now representing what is called a juggernaut county, but this problem is widespread throughout the country.

Housing

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Carter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current progress of house building; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: On a point of order. I am sorry the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) has not been able to turn up, but may I ask hon. Members who study the subject to look at the February house-building figures—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is out of order. It would be in order for him to answer the Question at the end of Question Time if he wished to do so.

Portsmouth

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an official visit to Portsmouth.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have no immediate plans to do so, but representatives


of both Portsmouth and Southampton local authorities are, with others, having discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development on Thursday, 6th April, and as the hon. Gentleman knows following a petition he presented to me, I have promised to study the points made in it.

Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the citizens of Portsmouth would welcome a visit by him at the earliest possible date to study at first hand the adverse impact of the planned reorganisation of local government? Does he realise that there is no direct public transport whatever between Portsmouth and Winchester, the proposed headquarters of the new administrative authority? Will he also undertake to give as speedy a reply as possible on the special rating problems affecting older urban areas such as the City of Portsmouth?

Mr. Walker: The latter point is being considered in terms of the future finance of local government. In reply to the hon. Member's first point, as he knows I have already visited Portsmouth. On 6th April my hon. Friend will be discussing local government reform problems with the councils concerned.

Footballers (Welsh International Matches)

Mr. McBride: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of the discussions he has held designed to ensure that football players born in Wales, who are employed by English clubs, are made available to play for their country of birth in international matches.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: This is a matter for the football authorities rather than the Government. Nevertheless I recognised Wales' difficulties and discussed them with the Football Association and the Football League.
Better arrangements have now been devised. Largely as a result of the public-spirited approach of the football authorities in England, especially the Football League, dates free from League matches are being planned earlier and are now more easily available for international matches than they were in the past. This arrangement is applicable to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to Wales.

Mr. McBride: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will be appreciated in the Principality and that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) and I particularly appreciate his efforts in this matter? Is he further aware that legislatively we know that nothing can be done, and that therefore his efforts are all the more welcome? I hope that this will present an opportunity for wearers of the Red Dragon in soccer to show the world what wearers of the Red Dragon in rugby have shown the world in their sport.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad to have been able to do something for Wales.

Sir D. Renton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's efforts to smooth things over wherever necessary. However, could he explain how his responsibility in this matter arises?

Mr. Griffiths: It arises because, at the request of hon. Members opposite who came to see me, I thought it right to speak to the football authorities on this matter. It is entirely as a result of their good will that an improved situation has arisen.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we wish to express our appreciation to him for his initiative in this matter and also to the Football Association? Although there may be no direct ministerial responsibility, it is the view of most sportsmen that there is no higher distinction for a sportsman than to represent his country—and this applies whether he is Scottish, Welsh or English?

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Carter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the current progress of house building; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: With your permission, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is not the first


occasion on which this Minister has sought to exercise dictatorial methods in trampling on the normal democratic procedures of this House. It is quite clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) was unavoidably absent and was unable to ask Question No. 38. I do not know which Standing Order allows the Minister, without the House's permission, to make a statement in answer to a Question which an hon. Member has been unable to ask orally through absence. If this procedure is to be allowed, it can be the forerunner of considerable abuses of the recognised procedures of the House.

Mr. Speaker: I must give my frank opinion on the point of order. This is a Question which was not withdrawn and which would have received a Written Answer. The Minister sought to answer it during the course of Questions, and he was not entitled to do so. If he seeks to answer it at the end of Questions, I have no means of stopping it, however undesirable it may be.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the Minister must seek permission of this House? If that is not the case, then a very important precedent is being created. Any Minister can choose to table a stooge Question for oral answer, the Member concerned can be absent and the Minister responsible for the Department, as in this case, can get up at the end of Questions and, disregarding the views of the House, proceed to give a stooge answer to a stooge Question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member's point of order, but this is one of the cases where the House by long custom uses the odd phrase "with permission" when no permission is needed. This is a matter which could go to the Select Committee on Questions.

Mr. William Hamilton: Meanwhile the matter is sub judice and the Minister ought not to be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to the point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, both you and your predecessors have allowed the use of the phrase "with per-

mission" in relation to the grouping of Questions. I do not recall a previous ruling in the matter of answering Questions which have not been put during the Question hour. If the phrase "with permission" does not mean with your permission, Mr. Speaker, you have made it clear that you have no power to intervene. Therefore, this can only be done with the permission of the House—and, clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has not got that permission.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is right. This is one of the matters, so I am advised, which are governed by regular practice. This is one of the customs of the House which need to be examined.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I should like to raise a further point of order. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that it is the usual custom of the House, and has been for many years, that if a Minister wishes to answer a Question at the end of Question Time by permission of the Chair, he in variably asks Mr. Speaker's permission before the occasion arises. The hon. Member concerned is given notice to that effect so that he is able to be in his place to put a supplementary question, if he so wishes. If such a Question is answered now, hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt wish to put supplementary questions. If the Question had been answered in written form, the hon. Member concerned might well have wished to follow it by tabling a further Question. However, that hon. Member may be precluded by the Table Office, and rightly so, if the further Question that he sought to ask had been answered in reply to supplementary questions which had been put during Question Time by other hon. Members. In this way that hon. Member may well have been precluded from exercising his normal rights to leave his Question on the Order Paper for written reply and to take any subsequent action that he thinks necessary. The hon. Member concerned—namely, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter)—is now expecting to receive a written reply—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House sometimes generates a great deal of unnecessary heat. I have indicated what I feel on this matter. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to do is undesirable, and I very much hope he will not continue to do so. His answer will be distributed as a Written Answer but I cannot stop him now.

Mr. Amery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Amery: I should like first to repudiate any suggestion by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—[Hon. Members: "What is the point of order?"]—that this was in any sense a stooge Question. He should not make such allegations about his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). I do not wish to detain the House because we have very important matters before us this afternoon. Therefore I am content that the very good February housing building figures which I have announced today should go forward in a Written Answer—[Interruption.] I am only surprised that the Opposition should take such a view—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite enough. Mr. Harold Wilson, Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Acting Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the Easter Recess?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The business for the first week after Easter will be as follows: 
MONDAY, 10TH APRIL. Supply (17th Allotted Day): Motion relating to Navy Estimates, 1972–73, Vote A.
The House will also be asked to pass the revised Estimate relating to Export Credits (Special Guarantees, Etc.)
Second Reading of the Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation Measure.
TUESDAY, 11TH APRIL. Consideration of a timetable Motion on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.
Progress on the remaining stages of the Sound Broadcasting Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 12TH APRIL. Remaining stages of the Sound Broadcasting Bill.
THURSDAY, 13TH APRIL. Progress on the remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
FRIDAY, 14TH APRIL. Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is not very well served by his ministerial colleagues on the subject of Scottish housing any more than he is well served by his English housing ministerial colleagues? Is he also aware that the proceedings on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Bill have been business-like and constructive and have not led to undue delay in getting to the guts of the Bill? In these circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot in his capacity as acting Leader of the House reconsider this matter, will he be ready to expect a very rough house from my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies when the Motion is debated?

Mr. Maudling: I have past experience of how rough at times right hon. and hon. Members opposite representing Scottish constituencies can be. They are seldom right, though.

Mr. Tebbit: Will there be time for a debate in the week after the Easter Recess on the February housing figures, which I understand are very good?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the traditional phrase is "Not next week."

Mr. Lipton: How does it come about that the Motion for the Easter Adjournment is placed before the House on the day before we are due to adjourn? That in itself is somewhat unusual. Normally, such a Motion is put down a day or two or even longer before we are due to rise for a Recess. Secondly, why is it that this Motion for the Adjournment is placed on the Order Paper at the end of Government business, thus whittling away the right of hon. Members on the back benches to raise matters on the Motion at the normal time of 3.30 p.m.? On


this occasion, heaven knows when hon. Members on the back benches will have an opportunity to speak to the Motion. It may be three, four or five o'clock tomorrow morning. This is a most unusual episode. I cannot recollect a precedent during the time that I have been a Member of this House. What is the precedent, and what is the reason for this very unusual state of affairs?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that it is extremely unusual, but so are the circumstances in which the House is meeting at present. It is recognised that it is urgently necessary to complete the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill, the Second Reading of which was agreed to overwhelmingly yesterday. It is because this business is so urgent that we have had to adopt this unusual procedure.

Mr. Money: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind Early Day Motion No. 221 in the name of the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, dealing with the proposed Parochial Fees Order, which will permit 100 per cent. increases with regard to a number of inevitable expenses particularly hitting the very poor? Will my right hon. Friend give us an opportunity to debate this important matter?

[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Parochial Fees Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 177), dated 11th February, 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be annulled.]

Mr. Maudling: Certainly I will bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Skinner: Is the newly-appointed Leader of the House aware—

Mr. Lipton: He is acting Leader of the House.

Mr. Skinner: Is he only acting? You could have fooled me. Is he aware that some of us on this side of the House would very much like a debate on the housing figures, slightly improved as the February figures will show, in order to demonstrate that the figures which the Minister for Housing and Construction wanted to brag about are not much better than hitherto and have been dragged from

the depths of the lowest housing construction figures for a decade? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey our request to his right hon. Friend in order that he may have the opportunity to give us a pledge that before this Government have finished they will be able to show that they have built at least 400,000 houses in a year?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That cannot arise on the business for the week following the Easter Recess.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Assuming that the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill is enacted, can my right hon. Friend give us any indication of the proposed rearrangement of the order of Questions in order to accommodate Parliamentary Questions concerning Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maudling: It is improper to do that until the Bill is enacted. However, consideration has been given to this matter, and as soon as the Bill is enacted the necessary arrangements will be made.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Reverting to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the proposed guillotine Motion on the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have now reached the stage where the Minister in charge of the Bill has indicated that Schedules 2 and 3 are to be withdrawn and later amended? In other words, our proceedings from now on are fictitious. Is there not a case, therefore, for saying that if we have to have a guillotine Motion at all, which we deplore, it should not be brought in until the end of May in any event and, further, that the Report stage should not be crammed into two days, which we understand is to be the case?

Mr. Maudling: These are considerations which can be debated when the timetable Motion comes before the House.

Mr. English: Much as we like the acting Leader of the House, can he say when the Prime Minister is likely to make up his mind as to whom he likes as Leader of the House?

Mr. Maudling: My job today as acting un—[Laughter.]—as acting Leader of the House is to serve the House as best I can.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of State, Treasury undertook in his wind-up speech last Thursday that I would receive replies from the Minister responsible to four specific questions that I had put in the debate and that I have not so far had replies? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that I have them before the House adjourns for Easter?

Mr. Maudling: I will see that that point is conveyed to my right hon. and hon. Friends responsible.

Mr. Dalyell: Since the other place has had two days to debate the Rothschild Committee's Report on the Research Councils is there any possibility of this House debating the subject before decisions are made?

Mr. Maudling: This is an important matter for consideration, but I am afraid not in the week that we return.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the Adjournment Motion which is to be taken at this abnormal time will not be put down at such an abnormal time in future without consultations with hon. Members on the back benches, who are always especially concerned, since it is a departure from practice and interferes with the rights of back-benchers? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to do it again?

Mr. Maudling: I accept that it is a wholly abnormal procedure. It is quite unavoidable in the circumstances.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to find Government time for the House to discuss the very important Select Committee Report concerned with private practice and the National Health Service, and will he discuss with his colleagues the possibility of adopting a procedure whereby a strong minority might have its views recorded?

Mr. Maudling: This report has only just appeared. Obviously, it must be considered. It is a report of great importance which the House will wish to consider as a whole.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Dr. Mabon.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend has made clear the reason for the abnormal procedure of taking the Motion for the Easter Adjournment as the last item of business on the Order Paper. We immediately accept his explanation. However, the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill appears as the second item of business between the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill and the Motion for the Adjournment. My right hon. Friend has made the point that the Adjournment Motion is to betaken last because of the abnormal urgency of the Northern Ireland Bill. However, I cannot believe that the same argument applies to the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Bill. Unless that Bill is expected to go through on the nod, in which case the two items of business could be changed round anyway, should not the Adjournment Motion be taken as the second and not the third item of business?

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the Lords Amendments to the Bill are generally acceptable to both sides of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (SCOTLAND)

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. George Thomson, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Ronald King Murray, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Frank McElhone, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Miller, Mr. James Hamilton, and Mr. Richard Buchanan presented a Bill to extend Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to Scotland: And the same was read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14th April, and to be printed [Bill 114].

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Resolved,
That this House do meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Five o'clock adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Pym.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 1962 AMENDMENT

3.49 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it compulsory for local education authorities, either individually or jointly, to provide boarding educational facilities for socially, mentally, or physically handicapped children.
The background to this proposition is that in my constituency there is a privately owned residential fee-paying school catering for boys between the ages of 6 and 16 years—and I quote from its brochure—
classified as maladjusted and mentally retarded.
The number of boys at this school is about 50, and they are drawn from local education authorities in both England and Scotland, and especially from the north-west of England.
The building in which these boys are being educated is very old. It was formerly an isolation hospital. In its latter years, in the early 1960s, it was used by the South-East Scotland Regional Hospital Board for mentally handicapped children. Following a report of the regional hospital board's architects' division in 1965, the board decided that it was unfit for any purposes that it had in mind, and the Fife County Council, after inspection of the building, came to the same conclusion. It was thereupon left idle for a considerable time, decaying and rotting.
It was then sold to a Mr. Taylor Bryant, who is now the principal of this school. Mr. Taylor Bryant has no academic qualifications of any kind, but he is the chief administrator in a school which has now been operating since September, 1970. He already owned a similar school for boys and girls in Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire.
The fees at the Fife school are £800 per year per child. I understand that in Newton Stewart the fees are £780 per year per child, slightly less than the fees at Eton, which I understand are £861 per year, at Harrow £849, at Gordonstoun £859 a year, and more than at Fettes, Mr. Speaker, in which you will be interested as an Old Boy, which are £750 a year. It would probably be

cheaper for the local education authorities to send these children to Gordonstoun or Fettes rather than to the school in my constituency.
I visited this school on two occasions, the last being a few weeks ago. My impression on my first visit was that the school was appallingly inadequate as to buildings, staff and facilities.
I have a large dossier of questions and correspondence over the last 18 months with both the Scottish and the English Education Departments. On 4th March, 1971, the English Secretary of State told me that three local education authorities in England had received her approval to place children at this school: namely, Manchester, Bolton and Oldham.
In answer to a further Question on 1st April, 1971, the right hon. Lady indicated that seven of the boys placed at Corsbie Hall School by English local education authorities had been withdrawn by the parents, but that four English local education authorities were still sending children there.
Subsequently, English local education authorities were advised by the Education Minister in England to withdraw all their children from Corsbie Hall School
after considering a report…of the Scottish Education Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 353.
That was in answer to a Written Question on 10th June, 1971. But English schoolchildren are still at that school.
I need not quote the exchanges which took place between myself and the Minister on 9th March, a fortnight ago, but the Minister in a subsequent letter indicated that
the additional three boys to whom you referred were sent by the Social Services Departments of local authorities who have the power to send children who are in their care to independent schools in appropriate cases.
The available information as to the scale of this problem in the Scottish Education Department is vague, but in answer to a Question on 15th March, 1972, the Secretary of State indicated that in Scotland there were eight such private fee-paying schools for handicapped children with a total of nearly 500 places. Three out of the eight were only provisionally registered. In English terms, they were not recognised as suitable places for the education of these children.
The relevant Scottish Act dealing with these matters is the Education (Scotland) Act, 1962, Part V, which relates to independent schools and their registration. Section 112(1)(d) provides that if
the proprietor of the school or any teacher employed therein is not a proper person to be the proprietor of an independent school or to be a teacher in any school
the Secretary of State shall have certain powers to deal with the matter. The school can be struck off the register.
I have already indicated that the proprietor of Corsbie Hall School has no academic qualifications whatever. He says that it is non-profit-making, and he gave me accounts, which I was not qualified to examine with the attention that they deserve. However, it is significant that the same principal sold the school at Newton Stewart to a Mr. Sendall, who had been the headmaster at Corsbie Hall when I first visited it some time ago. Mr. Sendall told me that the children in the school at West Fife were savages who had to be subjected to stern discipline, including corporal punishment. Mr. Sendall is now the headmaster of the school at Newton Stewart, Wigtownshire. I do not know why, if it is a non-profit-making organisation, Mr. Sendall should be interested in buying it from Mr. Taylor Bryant.
Corsbie Hall has been inspected by the Department on at least four occasions: 8th February, 1971; June, 1971; November, 1971; and March, 1972. Newton Stewart has also had several inspections. However, both schools are still provisionally registered, although the Secretary of State indicated to me as long ago as 4th February, 1971, that the matter was urgent. The urgency is not obvious in either the Scottish or the English Departments.
The rôle of local authorities in these matters is laid down in Part II of the 1962 Act, which lays duties on local authorities to deal with the education of handicapped children. I will not quote from the Act in view of the time. Suffice to say that it refers to regulations which shall be made by the Secretary of State. The only regulations made were in 1954. In Statutory Instrument No. 1239 nine categories of handicapped children were

indicated. The Secretary of State for Scotland has subsequently told me that it is impossible to categorise these children. He also believes that there ought to be an element of private enterprise in this sphere. I disagree profoundly. Indeed, so do the staff at the Corsbie Hall School. They say that this kind of education ought to be in the hands of local education authorities.
I believe that both the Scottish Department and the local education authorities are complacent about these problems. It is wrong to put the education of handicapped children into the hands of private individuals running fee-paying schools. It is almost criminal that local education authorities, from Oldham in England to the Shetlands in the North of Scotland, should shuffle out of their responsibilities by sending handicapped children to a private school in Fife at inordinate cost to their ratepayers.
No Minister would send his children to Corsbie Hall; no M.P. would send his children there. I mean no disrespect to the staff of the school. I believe that they are doing their best. The head is an ex-Marine commando, a good salesman and enthusiastic about his job. However, it is not a job which ought to be done by a private organisation. That is why I want to make it obligatory for local education authorities to face their responsibilities. That is the reason why I seek to bring in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. Frank McElhone, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Ronald King Murray, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. William Hannan, Mr. John Smith, and Mr. George Lawson.

EDUCATION(SCOTLAND) ACT 1962 AMENDMENT

Bill to make it compulsory for local education authorities, either individually or jointly, to provide boarding educational facilities for socially, mentally, or physically handicapped children, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 21st April, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

4.0 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment that I shall call is No. 8. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take with it Amendment No. 9.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that, as reported at column 361 of HANSARD for yesterday, the Attorney-General, speaking on behalf of the Government and winding up the debate, gave a quite specific undertaking to the House that he would introduce an Amendment today to make clear that the 40 days during which a confirmation order or an annulment must be brought before the House would exclude Saturdays and Sundays. In order that I should be quite sure that he knew what he was saying, I drew to his attention that the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, included Saturdays and Sundays, so that the House could know what his undertaking meant when he introduced the word "sitting" in mentioning the 40 days which is not in the Bill. After consulting the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland designate, the Attorney-General returned to the Despatch Box and affirmed to the House that his words meant precisely what they said—that they excluded Saturdays and Sundays. The Amendment which appears in the name of the Secretary of State for the Home Department does not honour that undertaking. It goes back to the definition in Clause—

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid that the point which the hon. Member is making is not, strictly speaking, a point for me. In bringing it to my attention no doubt he has made right hon. Members cognisant of what he is driving at, and if they wish to intervene they may do so to give satisfaction or not to him. There is no more that I can say. There-

fore, I must take another point of order which Mr. Pardoe wishes to raise.

Mr. James Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. There is a difficulty here. There was a clear understanding that the Government would put down an Amendment to meet the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). If I am wrong about that I am in good company because I believe that most hon. Members thought the same. In view of this misunderstanding, if it is such, would you, Sir Robert, accept a manuscript Amendment to permit the point put by the hon. Member to be taken as an alternative to the proposal which is being made by the Attorney-General? If not in Committee, could such a draft Amendment be considered on Report?

The Attorney-General(Sir Peter Rawlinson): Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I did mislead the hon. Member, but I do not think it was quite in the terms that he has suggested. If he will read again what I said, he will see that I said we were to provide an Amendment so that an order could be made which would lapse, if it were
not approved by affirmative Resolution, within 40 sitting days".
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) intervened to say that he was glad to hear me say:
 '40 sitting days', which excludes Saturdays and Sundays, which were included under the 1946 Act. I take it that this will be in the Amendment tomorrow?
To that I replied:
I understand that '40 sitting days' actually means what it says."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 361.]
I was incorrect, and I must, therefore, have misled the hon. Member. In those circumstances, may I support the proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and invite you, Sir Robert, perhaps to accept a manuscript Amendment possibly today?

The Chairman: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General. I shall be happy to consider the manuscript Amendment when I see it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point, Sir Robert. As we are dealing


with this matter fairly quickly, it might be for the convenience of everyone if the Government, having accepted the principle, instruct their draftsmen to provide the suggested Amendment to make sure that we can get it right. Otherwise, manuscript Amendments coming from the Floor of the Committee—

The Chairman: Order. I am sure that that point is followed.

Mr. John Pardoe: I do not wish to detain the Committee longer than necessary, but I wish to put a question on your selection, Sir Robert, without in any way challenging it and while realising the difficulties under which the Committee is labouring.
The point refers to the list of Amendments which you have joined with Amendment No. 10, and particularly new Clause 1. My hon. Friends and I tabled a list of Amendments many of which have to do with reserving legislative powers for Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom Parliament and giving the Secretary of State powers to make certain regulations subject to an affirmative order passed by each House of Parliament.
I fully accept that the Amendments referring to these matters should be grouped with Amendment No. 10, but new Clause 1 seeks to repeal the Special Powers Act, and we set very considerable store by that and regard it as of enormous importance. I submit that this is an entirely different matter. I do not see how the Committee could debate the question of the Special Powers Act being continued by this Bill as part of a general debate on Amendment No. 10. I therefore ask you to reconsider, if you will be so kind, whether you can afford a separate debate, as I hope you will be able to, but if not, to provide for a separate Division.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said, and I am also very much obliged for his giving me notice that he would raise this point. The Committee will readily understand that I have been under great difficulty in the selection of Amendments having regard to the timetable and matters of that kind. I feel that I cannot deviate from the numbers of debates which I have arranged, but I take the

point made by the hon. Member and will grant a Division on the new Clause to which he has referred.

Clause 1

EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS IN N.I.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I beg to move Amendment No. 8 in page 2, line 8, leave out:
'(and no writ need be isued to fill any vacancy)'.
One must examine the intention of the Government in introducing this Bill. In the House on Friday the Prime Minister said:
The United Kingdom Government remain of the view that the transfer of this responsibility to Westminster is an indispensable condition for progress in finding a political solution in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government's decision therefore leaves them with no alternative to assuming full and direct responsibility for the administration of Northern Ireland until a political solution to the problems of the Province can be worked out in consultation with all those concerned.
In other words, the Government have stated quite clearly that this Bill means what it says; it is a temporary provisions Bill giving the Government time to work out a "political solution".
My right hon. Friend enlarged on what he had said by adding:
We remain determined to find means of ensuring for the minority as well as the majority community an active permanent and guaranteed rôle in the life and public affairs of the Province."—[Official Report, 24th March; Vol. 833, c. 1860–2.]
If that is so, it is only reasonable that, the Parliament in Northern Ireland having been prorogued rather than dissolved, by-elections should take place should there be vacancies among those elected to serve at Stormont so that at the end of 12 months the Parliament in Northern Ireland will be ready to resume its functions of helping to govern Northern Ireland.
I argue this particularly strongly, because hon. Members will discover that the business which has normally been conducted at Stormont will place much too heavy a burden on the British House of Commons. Already we have difficulty dealing with the affairs of Scotland and Wales, together with the general affairs of the United Kingdom. There are many detailed matters which are considered


daily at Stormont. Much legislation is passed through that place.
I believe that it must be the intention in the long term to restore a democratically elected Government in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend who has taken on the onerous job of looking after the affairs of Northern Ireland should make full use of the knowledge and experience which are available in Northern Ireland.
I have greatly regretted reading statements which have been made in the heat of the moment in Northern Ireland which seem to indicate that many leading political figures there are not prepared to co-operate. Indeed, confidence in Northern Ireland has been greatly shaken by Her Majesty's Government's action, no less because of the manner in which the suspension of Stormont has been effected.
It was despicable of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put conditions to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland which my right hon. Friend knew were totally unacceptable and which he knew that the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland could not accept and remain leader of his party in Northern Ireland. If it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to suspend Stormont, they should have done this properly rather than put unacceptable conditions to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.
As a result of this action, confidence has been lost in Northern Ireland. It is vital that those in Northern Ireland who have taken an interest in politics and who have experience in political affairs should be encouraged to come forward and help my right hon. Friend in his difficult task in the coming year. Only by accepting an Amendment such as this—that is, to allow by-elections to be held in the coming year—can the Government show their good will and help to restore the confidence of those affected in Northern Ireland.
I remember clearly that when this trouble started in 1969 the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland carried the banner "One man, one vote". Those concerned meant one man one vote in local authority elections. If they were sincere, surely it cannot have been their intention to secure the suspension of the

democratically elected Parliament in Ulster. If that banner was nothing but a guise covering the intention to achieve something else which they were not prepared to display—namely, their intention completely to overthrow the constitution of Northern Ireland—hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), who has taken a keen interest in these matters, should support this move to restore the elected Parliament in Ulster.

Mr. James Kilfedder: My hon. Friend is speaking about political slogans. Does he agree that one good slogan for Northern Ireland would be "One people, one Parliament", meaning this Parliament?

Mr. McMaster: No, I do not. This is why I have tabled this Amendment and the other Amendments standing in my name. A system of local Parliaments covering not only Northern Ireland but Scotland and Wales is desirable. I am dealing now strictly with the situation in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend must be aware of the very great volume of work in the British House of Commons. He must appreciate that it would be impossible for the House of Commons to be expected to deal with all the details of Ulster, particularly in view of the distances involved and the fact that the Irish Channel provides a geographical barrier which tends to produce in Northern Ireland a feeling that the inhabitants there cannot take their grievances so readily to Westminster, both because of Westminster's greater pre-occupation with the affairs of the nation as a whole and because of the physical distances involved. Therefore, the matters with which Stormont has dealt up to now are ideal matters for a local Parliament.
I therefore believe that if my right hon. Friend accepted the Amendment he would do something to restore confidence in Northern Ireland, together with the statement which has been made by the Government that they intend first to restore peace in Ulster. The Government might well say categorically that they are not prepared to restore peace at any price—in other words, that they are not prepared to sell out Northern Ireland. If this indeed is their intention, I suggest that they accept the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: I oppose the Amendment. We are arranging in the Bill to deprive a certain number of representatives of their jobs, but we are providing to go on paying them. In the circumstances, that is a perfectly proper thing to do. I understand that there are two vacancies at Stormont at present, and there may be others during the year. To provide that people should be elected to fill those vacancies and be paid accordingly when there is no task to be performed is totally unjustified.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) suggests that, as it is not the Government's declared intention permanently to abolish Stormont, it should be kept in moth balls—totally in moth balls—so that it can be reactivated at whatever is the right time. If and when it is reactivated, there will be plenty of opportunity, when the job of being a Member of Stormont is re-created, to issue the writs and fill the vacancies.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is misconstruing my remarks. The whole purport of my argument was not that Stormont should be kept in moth balls but that it should be kept alive and that its Members should be encouraged to feel that it is still alive and to come forward and help my right hon. Friend in his difficult job in the year ahead. That is one of the reasons behind the Amendment.

Mr. Cunningham: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who is to be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will want a great number of people to come forward and assist him in his task and to serve on the Commission, and so on. That is no reason why some people who have not performed any similar function in the past should be paid for doing so, on one basis as full representatives, while others will presumably be able to recoup only their expenses.
If and when Stormont is reactivated, that will be the proper time to issue the writs. If and when Stormont is reactivated, the situation in Northern Ireland is likely to be of a kind when it would be sensible to hold elections to fill vacancies. In the present circumstances in Northern Ireland, to go through the process of holding constituency elections

not to get working representatives but to get people who are immediately put into suspense but are paid for being representatives would be an act of folly.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I rise to speak in support of this Amendment because it goes to the very heart of whether we believe that one day Stormont will be reactivated as the Parliament of Northern Ireland or whether we have written it off but are not prepared to say so.
The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) made the point that it seems foolish to have by-elections when the person who is elected cannot do anything and that we should wait for the moment when we reactivate Stormont, if we do, before filling such vacancies. I would remind him that the prorogation of Stormont is only for 12 months and, as many of us in this House who have had to wait for their by-elections to come up will know, very many months often elapse between the moment a vacancy occurs and the time the writ is issued. Therefore, the idea that the moment a vacancy occurs a writ is issued is far from the truth.
But if it is our intention to maintain Stormont as the structure of a possible Government for Northern Ireland, then by the same token, and bearing in mind that a General Election in Northern Ireland is not expected for some years, these vacancies must be filled so that if after 12 months we decide to put Stormont back we put back a complete Parliament for Northern Ireland. Let us not forget that we are talking about the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, not about any section of that people.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he made his statement last Friday about the prorogation, said:
Our immediate proposals are put forward in an endeavour so to change the climate of political opinion in Northern Ireland that discussions can be resumed in an effort to reach agreement on a new way forward to this end. It is our intention, as soon as circumstances permit, to promote the necessary consultations about the future structure of Government in Northern Ireland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1862–63.]
Of course, those words could mean that we are thinking of some totally different political structure. Conceivably, we do not believe that Northern Ireland should


have a Parliament again, but we have not said so in this Bill. We have only introduced a Bill to prorogue Stormont for one year. Therefore, following the intention of that Bill, it seems to me that if we accept the words for what they mean we must maintain Stormont as an entity in suspended animation which can be brought to life whenever we so desire.

Mr. Angus Maude: It seems to me that this is something at which the Government might well look again. The argument of the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) does not seem to me to be a valid one. What he was really saying was that we should not pay people who are elected to a Parliament which is prorogued, but really this argument applies to the question of paying those who remain in the seats which they already occupy. Either one should not pay the Parliament or one should be prepared to pay somebody even if he is elected while the Parliament is prorogued.
There are surely three paints here which the Government ought to bear in mind if the Lord President is to have the support he hopes for when he gets to Ireland. My two hon. Friends who have spoken have both referred to the fact that this prorogation is officially for one year and that it is hoped that Stormont will be restored at the end of the year. I am very doubtful about this. My own feeling from the moment the Government made their proposals has been that events will have slipped from their grasp at the end of the year. We may never see Stormont again as an effective Parliament.
Nevertheless, the Government say that Stormont is prorogued for one year and that they hope that Parliament will once again operate. If it is going to operate, whether at the end of the year or at the end of a longer period, let us just consider what the position would be if the strength of that Parliament had been eroded in the interim by a number of deaths, resignations or whatever it might be. At the point at which the Government want and need to reactivate Stormont they want a representative Parliament in being at that time to operate as a proper, effective, democratic machine. What they cannot afford is immediately to have to hold perhaps six or eight by-elections, which would amount

to a mini-General Election, just at the point at which it will be necessary for the Parliament to be operating properly.
It surely follows, therefore, that as a simple precaution against the time when the Government might need Stormont they must keep Stormont up to strength so that it is able to go into action at exacly the moment when the Government want its help, if they ever do want its help.
I can see that from the point of view of any Government taking dictatorial powers over a Province it will be very inconvenient to have controversial by-elections during the period when they are governing directly. Nevertheless there is something to be said for encouraging the people of Ulster during that period to believe that they have democratic machinery through which they can exercise their suffrage and express their opinions. Indeed, the Lord President may well find it very helpful to be able to take the views of a sample electorate in Northern Ireland during this period to see how far he is succeeding in his task and what volume of support he has among the two communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Antony Buck: In support of my hon. Friend's point, would he not agree that what the Bill does is to provide the Lord President with flexibility? He can issue writs, and he can sound out public opinion as my hon. Friend has just said he may wish to do. Is it not right that discretion should be left to him? It might be very difficult in certain circumstances to hold a by-election.

Mr. Maude: I do not think so. That has a somewhat nasty ring about it. We know the kind of trouble there can be in this House when writs for by-elections have been unduly delayed by the Government in power on either side of the House. I notice that the Liberal benches are extraordinarily empty when a matter of democratic freedom is at stake, but I seem to remember the Liberal Party complaining very bitterly at being disfranchised for a long time. I do not think it can be left to the Government alone to decide whether a writ for a by-election should be issued. This is surely a matter which must operate subject to some democratic sanctions. After all, in this House, if a writ is not issued


in due time, there are certain circumstances in which Mr. Speaker can issue a writ, and if the writ is too long delayed hon. Members have the sanction of being able to put down a Motion and debate it in this House, and indeed to carry a Motion against the Government. I do not think this can be left to the discretion of a dictatorial Government exercising direct rule. I think the Government would find it inconvenient.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a writ should be moved in this House? Surely the only place for a writ to be moved for the Parliament of Northern Ireland is at Stormont, and how can a writ be moved in a Parliament that is prorogued?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member is making the point which I was just going on to deal with. Of course he is right. I was answering my hon. Friend, however, who said that we should leave the Lord President, the Secretary of State designate, to decide whether or not a writ should be issued. That would, quite clearly, be wrong.
What this Bill does is to take out of the hands of the authorities properly and constitutionally charged with issuing writs the power to do so when they think it is necessary and right. I am saying that the authorities at present responsible for issuing writs should retain the power to do so. I believe that if the Government allow the Parliament of Northern Ireland, perhaps over a period of one or two years, to be denuded of parts of its strength so that a mini-General Election has to be held when they want that Parliament, they will find that it is much more embarrassing than allowing the normal constitutional procedures to operate and individual constituencies in Ulster to express their views democratically as the occasion arises.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), in moving the Amendment, referred to me specifically, and perhaps hope springs eternal in his breast when he suggests that I ought to support the re-establishment of Stormont. He will know that, as from seven years past, those of us who have been involved

and interested in Northern Ireland affairs have been putting forward precisely what the Government have now done, which is to suspend or prorogue Stormont. So I do not think he made those remarks in any serious sense.
One hesitates to intervene in what apparently is an internal struggle among the pro-Stormont and pro-integration Unionists. But there is another view on the Amendment, partly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), which is quite contrary to that expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. There are a number of reasons why one must oppose the Amendment.
Firstly, we all know that it is a meaningless charade to have elections in these circumstances, and that, as such, far from aiding, it would be harmful to any concept of democratic institutions. Secondly, and practically, it must be a ludicrous exercise. It would elect people to be paid for not attending a body which does not exist, or, at least, which is temporarily defunct. It lends itself to the kind of futile symbolism which all too often is unfortunately the heritage of Ireland, and Northern Ireland in particular. Thirdly, and more important, it derogates from the effectiveness of the advisory Commission set up by the Government and, therefore, from the willingness of all sections of the population to participate in it, notwithstanding the blackmail and the threats of Mr. Craig with regard to those who might sit on that Commission. It is certainly not pleasant to be called a Lundy or a traitor, any more than it is for some of my hon. Friends to be picketed by the I.R.A. The most important argument against this, and the peculiar merit of the Bill, as I see it, which certainly led me into the Lobby with the Government last night for only the second time in 7½ years, is that it creates in the advisory Commission the embryo, at least, of some sort of community government in Northern Ireland which could take in Northern Irishmen of all denominations and views, and the sooner we disengage rather than integrate the better.
That is why I oppose the Amendment. I believe that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), who voted against the


Bill last night—I understand their reasons—perhaps made the wrong analysis. They are not seeing and grasping the possibilities which exist here for a positive rather than a negative approach with regard to the advisory Commission. Evidently Mr. Craig and the hon. Member for Belfast, East disagreed with them in their analysis, and I understand the reasons for that as well as I understand the reasons for the view that they took. But there is the possibility of building up from that Commission something that would be a representative and democratic institution, in a way that Stormont never was because of its built-in one-party system and built-in majority.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East is really saying that if he cannot have Stormont, if he cannot perpetuate Unionist domination of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland over which Stormont has held sway for 50 years, if he cannot defy Westminster to the extent that he and some of his predecessors did when they refused to allow my hon. Friends and me to even ask Questions or raise matters pertaining to Northern Ireland in this House, if he cannot continue the convention that prevented us from dealing with those matters he and his friends want to find another way rather than to hide behind the convention. If they cannot perpetuate that domination, some of them would prefer direct integration as a second best.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who has tabled new Clause 8, is in danger of falling into a trap in that declaratory Clause. First, it is hollow and meaningless. But it was demolished—and this is very relevant to the Amendment—by his former Cabinet colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) in a very telling speech last night.
An attempt to spell out in a declaratory statement that the staus quo is to remain for all time with that sort of rigidity and commitment is a nonsense.
We all remember the Colons in Algeria and their slogan "L'Algerie Française", which now has been seen to be a nonsense and a move towards integration, like Amendment No. 9, which we are discussing with the Amendment, which is the alternative strategy. But at least it

is worthy of support in so far as it would prevent the charade of so-called elections to a non-existing body.
The present position is that we ought at least to leave the slumbering Stormont in favour of a greater flexibility which is made possible under the new provisions, because this leaves the door open at least for discussions between London, Dublin, the advisory Commission and the Minister. It allows for a peaceful movement of opinion according to the will of the whole population of Northern Ireland. It leaves it open for both communities, and, indeed, people of all persuasions, to deal with this problem without seeing always the Border as a divisive issue. It allows for a kind of flexibility which the presence of the argument about the Border prevents and a by-product of which has been that no progressive movement, north or south of the Border, aimed at real social change has been possible because it has always been diverted, by right-wing extremists whether in the South or the North, on sectarian lines.
Dealing with the question of election writs, this will provide a diversion. It will provide a heightening of tension every time there is an election, which is precisely what is not needed when we require a calm appraisal by both communities in an atmosphere free from violence, strife and intimidation. There can be no doubt that elections fought today in today's atmosphere would only stir up that sort of strife. Elections for a non-functioning body will only help to polarise opinion and freeze existing attitudes. There would be more difficulty in creating an opening by the South or, indeed, in looking to the future of Northern Ireland, whether in the context of all-Ireland or in the United Kingdom, or the general context of United Kingdom-Irish relations or, perhaps, looking further ahead, within the context of the Common Market, if we were regularly to have these battles at election time for this non-existing body.
Finally, while Stormont is prorogued, let it stand as such and be treated as such. Let there be no writs and no elections. As the prorogation period is not known and may well be renewed at the end of the year, and by-elections, if held, will already be outdated—this is the answer to the hon. Member for


Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude)—public opinion may well have changed by the time Stormont comes into existence again, if ever. Therefore, in opposing Amendment No. 8 I say that it is an attempt to revive, as it were, a patient under ananaesthetic while he is in the course of undergoing a very serious operation. Doing that can have very dangerous results to a patient. It can have very much more dangerous results in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I oppose the Amendment. First, the House of Commons in Northern Ireland stands prorogued and I do not see how one could possibly issue an election writ while it is prorogued. That is surely a complete impossibility. Hon. Members have said that they do not want the new Secretary of State to have this power. In that case, I recommend them to accept my Amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 8, leave out 'need', and insert 'shall', which says that he shall not have it and retains it in the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
I think that it is a waste of time for the Committee to spend much time on this matter because there are Amendments of far deeper importance that we could discuss with greater profit. But the Committee would be foolish to suggest that it would be opportune, while the Government of Northern Ireland are in cold storage and a temporary administration has been set up, to run by-elections for a Parliament which does not even meet.

Mr. Maude: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us why the Speaker of the Northern Ireland House cannot issue a writ while Parliament is prorogued? Mr. Speaker can here.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand that that is not the custom in Northern Ireland, that Parliament must be in session.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: I do not pretend to be an expert on this matter; nor, I think, does the hon. Gentleman. I suspect, however, that the situation there is the same as here, where a writ can be issued in the long recess on the direction of Mr. Speaker.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Whether that is so or not, I suggest that it is the usual custom, certainly in Northern Ireland, that the party which last held the seat has the opportunity to make the move for filling it. It is suggested by the Amendment that, in the midst of a temporary Government of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State should have power to issue writs, since he is to have the full power of Parliament and Government in Northern Ireland. I, on the contrary, would like to take the power completely out of his hands and say that a writ "shall" not be issued.

Sir Elwyn Jones: There are one or two questions which hon. Members have raised on these Amendments which should be answered. It would seem to be clear that the prorogation of Parliament, either here or in Stormont, does not prevent the holding of by-elections when Stormont or this House is not sitting. It would seem that the matter is dealt with in three Acts of the British Parliament which I understand apply to the Northern Ireland Parliament. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will obtain confirmation of that, but I believe it to be the case. The three Acts are the Recess of Parliament Act, 1784, the Election of Members during Recess Act, 1854, and the Elections in Recess Act, 1863.
It is obvious that Parliament in the past has attached great importance to this matter because there are elaborate provisions in the legislation to deal with the situation which might arise when a Speaker dies or becomes insane. The latter event, to the best of my knowledge, has never yet in our parliamentary history—not in recent times, certainly—occurred, in spite of some indications to the contrary at certain times.
The effect, as I understand it, of the legislation is that if during a prorogation a Member of Parliament dies or vacates his seat, any two other Members can force Mr. Speaker to issue his writ for a fresh election. I seem to remember that on one occasion a member of the at present non-represented Liberal Party sought to do this some years ago, causing a good deal of alarm and despondency. But that does seem to be the legal position and the Committee is entitled to know.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that prorogation and the adjournment for the recess are the same thing? There is a difference between the adjournment for the recess and prorogation, which takes place in this House for about four days.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I do not think that they are the same. I am dealing precisely with the prorogation position, however. I do so not seeking to give the impression that I speak with authority on the matter, but, to the best of my recollection and on the information presently available to me, what I am saying seems to be accurate.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that while Parliament at Stormont is prorogued any two Members, under the Acts he is relying on, can move for a writ and that the Speaker can issue it if he be not insane? In that case it would appear that the discretion lies with any two Members of the Stormont Parliament and not with the Secretary of State.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am asking questions and stating what I think to be the position. I assume, from the inclusion in parenthesis of the words
and no writ need be issued to fill any vacancy
that they were intended to deal with the situation. What the new Secretary of State intends should be made clear. I understand that the purpose of these words
and no writ need be issued to fill any vacancy
is to prevent that situation arising. Or is it? I do not know. The words as they stand seem to leave an area of discretion. They are not a prohibition. In whom is the discretion to lie? Is it in the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament? Is it in the Secretary of State? Where is it to lie?
I cannot help but think that what the Government have in mind is that the words in parenthesis shall mean that "no writ shall be issued to fill any vacancy". Perhaps we can be told. If the intention is not to achieve that objective, then the Secretary of State, who is going to have to carry these onerous burdens in

Northern Ireland, may well face a remarkable situation, if I am right so far on the constitutional position—namely, that there can be a series of resignations and a series of testing by-elections over the course of the next 12 months, and if it is thought that it would be good to bring about an era of quiet and potential consensus in Northern Ireland, then I cannot imagine a more deplorable potential course of events than that.
Although at first blush these seem to be unimportant Amendments, they raise important matters and issues, and accordingly I make no apology for raising those matters in direct terms at this stage. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman will require the assistance of the Attorney-General because what I have said is admittedly tentative on the basis of such information as I presently have.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East): In this interesting analysis of the possible interpretations, may I suggest that there may be a third possible interpretation, that the words do not import a restraint because in that case the natural word for draftsmen to use would have been "shall" and they are not intended to give a discretion to some undefined person, but, being in brackets, they are merely declaratory to say that there will be no duty to fill the vacancy. There is no restraint and no interruption of any power that may exist.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I agree that that is a possible interpretation. As I understand the constitutional position, without some specific provision in the Clause the doubts to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred could well arise in the circumstances I have indicated. I hope that this matter will be clarified before these Amendments reach a Division.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has done a considerable service by tabling this Amendment. I was not aware of the extraordinary doubts that exist over the meaning of these words. As a simple layman I had read this as being a discretion given to the Secretary of State over whether a writ should be issued. I had intended to address my remarks against that discretion and I was hoping that the Secretary of State designate would tell me something of his intentions.
Perhaps while we are waiting for the Law Officers, or one of them, to come to tell us what the words mean so that we can make up our minds about our attitude towards them, I could say a word about the general argument which is that because Parliament should stand prorogued therefore Parliament is of no account. This is a mistaken conception. Members of Parliament at Stormont remain Members despite the prorogation. They are elected Members and they continue to be paid because they have important duties to perform. No one suggests that when this House is prorogued we abandon all our duties and rights. The Secretary of State designate has said that among the various people whom he might consult about the future of Northern Ireland are the elected representatives—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman asserting that the Secretary of State designate said that he would consult Members of Parliament in Stormont? I do not think he said that. He said that he would consult Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland at Westminster.

Captain Orr: I am perfectly prepared to accept that my right hon. Friend was opaque about his intentions. He has not said precisely whom he will consult, but I most certainly got the impression that he would consult the elected representatives of the people. The people of Northern Ireland have elected two sets of representatives. They have elected those of us who sit here and they have elected others to represent them on other matters transferred to the local Parliament. These people have a mandate to represent them on those matters. I have no mandate to represent the people of Northern Ireland in those matters. I should have thought that in matters internal to Northern Ireland my right hon. Friend, if he is to consult elected representatives, ought to consult the people whom the electors have selected to represent them.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With his great experience on these matters can my hon. and gallant Friend inform me about a matter which is concerning me and which I think will concern the Commission? Presumably the subjects dealt with by the elected Members at Stormont cover a large range of social and domestic

jurisdiction which give rise as we all know to considerable correspondence, interviews and queries from constituents. Does my hon. and gallant Friend think that during this period of prorogation constituents in Northern Ireland will continue to address to their Members these run of the mill constituency queries and if that be so—I cannot think that they will suddenly stop and send them to a Commission instead—would it not be right for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State designate not only to be consulting them but to be receiving their representations on these vital, human matters?

Captain Orr: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He is perfectly right. For example, my constituents concerned with road transport and the question of roads within their own Northern Ireland divisions will not write to me about it. I never had a mandate about that. They will take they matter up with the person whom the elected to represented them in these matters. That person is still an elected Member of Parliament and as such he has the right of access to the Crown which is one of the ancient privileges of Parliament, not taken away by prorogation.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is embarking upon a very dangerous philosophy on this question of mandates when he says that he does not have a number of mandates. If this is the supreme Parliament, extending throughout the United Kingdom, then of course he has a mandate to represent all the interests of his constituents in this Parliament. On the more practical point the hon. and gallant Gentleman would stand out as not being representative of most hon. Members if he is saying that his constituents do not write to him about roads and all the other matters that are often better dealt with not even by Stormont but by a county council. I know that my hon. Friends, and perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite, get letters which ought to have been referred to a town clerk. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman gets them.

Captain Orr: The hon. Lady ignores the 1920 Act by which this Parliament devolved certain of its powers upon the Parliament of Northern Ireland. This


Bill does not bring that Parliament to an end, it merely provides that it shall be prorogued for one year.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman admits that the mandate of this Parliament is extending itself and it is now taking under its jurisdiction all the transferred powers, so that surely the people who can rightfully and properly make representations will be Members of this House, and I speak as a Member of both Houses? I know what will happen when a Member of the prorogued Parliament goes to a Government Department. It will simply say to him, "You have no jurisdiction now Stormont is not in existence. How can we take your representation?"

5.0 p.m.

Captain Orr: If my hon. Friend would care to look at yesterday's Hansard he will see that the Minister said that he gave
the most complete assurance that I will seek to use these considerable legislative powers as little as possible in the temporary period of the Bill. When I have to use them, I will undertake the maximum possible discussion in this House, particularly with the Northern Ireland Members here as well as in Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 28th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 244.]
That is exactly my point. I do not recognise that this Bill makes Members of Parliament elected in Northern Ireland non-Members of Parliament. They are Members of a Parliament which stands prorogued. They have rights conferred upon them when they were elected—rights and duties. They are not allowed to meet as a Parliament, but those rights and duties remain. Therefore, if, on the matters which the Act of 1920 transferred to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend should be looking for advice, he would be perfectly entitled and ought to take advice of the elected representatives of the people in Northern Ireland with mandates on the subjects for which they were, responsible.

Mr. John Biffen: Would my hon. and gallant Friend care to reflect, when addressing himself to the question of the extent to which the duties of a Member of Parliament persist during the period of prorogation, on the fact that Lord Boyle, in his pay award to Members of Parliament, concluded that we would still be doing our job sufficiently and that

we would be paid right up through the period of prorogation and the actual election?

Captain Orr: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. He underlines the point I was making.
To come, then, to the question involved in this Amendment, which is the question of the issue of writs. It seems to me that it is a dangerous discretion to leave to a Minister of the Crown, the question whether or not a writ shall be issued. Whether the words in the Clause mean that or not I am not sure. No doubt the Attorney-General will be dealing with the point. However, if the words mean that discretion is left to the Minister, that is an exceedingly dangerous one to leave with any Minister.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend, when he replies to the debate, will tell us his intentions. One can see that during this period of prorogation there may come vacancies, and there may be divisions, therefore, unrepresented; some divisions will have Members of Parliament, some will not—that is, Members of Parliament at Stormont. Suppose the Secretary of State in his wisdom decides to consult the elected representatives of the people. There may be certain divisions which will not be represented and which will have no voice whatever in that process.
It is also dangerous, in that a Secretary of State—I do not believe my right hon. Friend would do this—might make selective issues of writs, writs which he thought might help him; he might think other writs would not. It is an exceedingly arbitrary power to put in the hands of a Secretary of State. It is an arbitrary power to put in the hands of a Minister.
My only purpose in speaking was simply to inquire of my right hon. Friend what his intentions are concerning the Members of Parliament at Stormont, and consultation with them.

Mr. Maude: It is a perfectly fair question to put to the Lord President, but the essential question is whether it is going to be in his power or discretion at all, or whether it is in the power of the Speaker of the Stormont Parliament, whatever this Bill says.

Captain Orr: Indeed. As I said at the beginning, I had concluded, as a simple layman, that these words meant that the discretion was going to the Secretary of


State. It might be useful if the Attorney-General were to intervene, or, possibly, the Lord President, to tell us what the Bill means, and whether these words are actually necessary, before we determine our attitude to the Amendment.

[Sri STEPHEN MCADDEN in the Chair]

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Perhaps it will help if I intervene at this stage and inform the Committee what the legal position is, as I understand it, and deal with the various points which have been raised.
In the first place, I want to make two points in general. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has, as some hon. Members have said, done a service to the Committee, certainly to me, by enabling me to find out exactly the full position, and I am very grateful to him for having done that, and I have found it out. He said I would not consult people with experience and knowledge in Northern Ireland. I can tell him I am most anxious to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) discussed my dictatorial powers. I accept at once that for the period of one year this Bill confers on me very considerable powers, but it is right and very important for me to say that in the exercise of those powers I am answerable to this House of Commons and that in anything I do in the exercise of those powers I can be questioned in this House of Commons. Censure Motions can be put down against me in this House of Commons. If necessary and if this House should wish, it can carry censure Motions against me and get rid of me. It would be within its power.
This is extremely important. After all, as someone with my background as Leader of the House, I should not like it to be felt that I would be likely to treat lightly the position that I am completely answerable to this House of Commons in taking on these powers which, I realise, are considerable. I hope they are temporary, and I hope that it is appreciated that in exercising them I must be answerable to this House of Commons.
Having said that, I turn to what is, I understand, the legal position. By-elec-

tion writs in Northern Ireland are issued by the Governor. Under this Bill I take the powers of the Governor. Therefore, his discretion as to the issue of writs is in my discretion. It is also perfectly true that the Governor in these matters would normally act on advice. In paragraph 1(1)(6) of the Schedule to the Bill provision is laid down that I can act without advice simply for the very proper reason that in acting I am answerable to this House of Commons. That makes my position quite different. Therefore, from that point of view, I have the power and I can exercise it as to whether or not I do issue a writ.
That is the legal position, and I think that that clears up the point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) raised.

Mr. Maude: I think we should get this quite clear, because it is a genuinely puzzling point. Are there no circumstances in which, even while the House in Stormont is prorogued, the Speaker of that House can issue his writ for a by-election? Of course we know that it is a matter for the Crown in the case of a General Election, but Mr. Speaker here, as I understand it, can issue his writ while Parliament it prorogued.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am advised that there is no question but that the Governor issues all writs, including writs for by-elections, in Northern Ireland. If there were any mistake in that, I would tell the Committee, but that is the advice I am given. I think that makes the position clear. I keep on returning to the point that in whatever I may do in these matters I am answerable to the House of Commons.
Now I turn from the legal points to the merits of the case before me and what are my intentions, given that I have this power. Perhaps not for the last time in the task I am now undertaking, I find myself under considerable crossfire as to my best course of action. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) feels that I should say that I will under no circumstances issue any such writ, because as the Northern Ireland Parliament is prorogued there would little point in having Members come to it when they would have no duties. But my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East and


my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) take the view that there are considerable duties for Members of Parliament in Stormont, even prorogued, as there are for Members of this House, even prorogued, and that I should take that into account.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If a by-election were called by my right hon. Friend, would it not be difficult for the Member elected to be sworn in, since there is no Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: My advice is, "Yes", but I have no doubt that if it were thought right for this to be done in certain circumstances that could be arranged.
But perhaps on a more serious note I should turn to the reason why the words in the Bill are as they are. It would be fair to recognise both the points of view that have been expressed, which are important. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Antrim, North suggests that it would not make much sense to have a by-election. Should we be able in these circumstances to get men or women of experience and knowledge who wished to take part in politics to stand for such a by-election? We should have to consider that very carefully. It is likely that they would not, and if they would not—

Mr. Chichester Clark: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that such a situation might be attractive to certain people, because they would be paid during the period without doing anything?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept that, but if I may say so to my hon. Friend, whose knowledge of this House and experience in all these matters I much respect, I think that all of us here would feel a certain conscience if we were to stand in such circumstances with basically very little to do other than to draw our pay.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is usual in the Stormont Parliament that before a Member takes the oath after being elected in a by-election he must be sponsored by two Members of Parliament. Surely, in those circumstances, if a by-election were held, in order for the person elected to be a Member of Parliament, Parliament would have to be recalled, sponsors provided and the usual procedure carried out?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must note what the hon. Gentleman says—

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one does not have to be sworn in to be a Member of Parliament? When a person is elected he is declared to be the Member for the constituency in question.

Mr. Whitelaw: The more I hear of this matter, the more I think that, given that the words in the Bill are very reasonable, I should explain why they are there.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Do not the words in the Bill in fact put the right hon. Gentleman in an impossible and intolerable position?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think so. I could have had words saying that no writ would be issued. I could have conformed to the view of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. But it is only right, in the very tentative and difficult situation with which we are faced, to have as much flexibility as is reasonably possible. The more I have heard of this debate, the more I think that it is very unlikely that I would seek to take the step of issuing such a writ, and I think the Committee will feel that, too. But it is right to be flexible. I cannot foresee all the circumstances. If I consider issuing a writ, I can be questioned in the House. I am answerable to the House, and I undertake that if there were any question of doing so I would tell the House and explain my reasons.
There is one other important point to be made in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South on the question of constituency problems for those who are at present Members of the prorogued Stormont Parliament. I intend to write to them and say that I am very willing to consider any constituency points on matters formerly in the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. I shall write personally to each one of them. If they write to me and my Ministers, I will ensure that they receive the most careful and studied replies. That is my responsibility.
I think I have made the legal position clear. I am sorry to go on stating that I am responsible to this House, but it is very important for me to state it, if only to get it solidly in my brain. The more


I see the Bill, the more I realise the sort of powers I am being given. It would be wrong to say I am frightened by them, because I must not be frightened by anything, and I will not be.
I am answerable to this House for what I do, and I hope that on that basis the Committee will not press the Amendment.

Mr. McMaster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his careful reply, and I note with interest the points raised by my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones).
Having listened to this lengthy discussion, my right hon. Friend now perhaps sees a little of what he may be in for during the coming year. He said that he was having discussions with those in Northern Ireland who are particularly knowledgeable in these matters. In the light of those discussions, and because we shall perhaps have the opportunity to return to this point later, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 9, leave out from 'vacancy)' to end of subsection.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 13, in line 16, leave out from 'make' to end of subsection and insert:
'regulations for the preservation of peace and maintenance of order in Northern Ireland'.

New Clause 1—"Special Powers Act"—
The Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 and all Regulations made there under shall not have effect while this Act is in force.

Amendment No. 35, in page 3, line 41, leave out:
'of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922'
and insert:
of this Act'.

Amendment No. 36, in page 3, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Amendment No. 49, in page 4, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2)

Amendment No. 56, in page 5, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Amendment No. 58, in page 5, line 19, leave out:
'or of any Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act'.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order. Arising from that selection, are you allowing a separate Division on each Amendment, Sir Stephen?

The Temporary Chairman: On new Clause 1, yes.

Captain Orr: The purpose of the Amendment is to raise an extremely important point which goes to what I regard as the vice of the Bill. Many hon. Members argued on Second Reading that the Bill was a surrender to violence, but it is not fully appreciated exactly how must we are surrendering. It is one thing to give a Minister in the House of Commons executive authority, but it is another thing to give him the powers of a legislature. I am not sure about the technicalities of the Amendment or about what consequential Amendments might be required, as I am not a lawyer, but the purpose is to remove from the Minister designate the power to make laws.
My right hon. Friend said a moment ago that he was answerable to the House of Commons, and he has constantly stressed this. That is true. He is answerable to the House for his powers of administration, but here he is taking something which no other Minister has, except under specific Acts of Parliament where the power to make regulations is given. The Bill goes far wider. The power that is given is the power of a Parliament, and we shall be giving these powers to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. George Cunningham: Given the amount of time we shall spend on the Bill, I think we can take it for granted that Government Amendment No. 38 and related Amendments are likely to form part of the Bill as finally passed. If Amendment No. 38 is incorporated into the Bill the Minister will not have the unfettered power to pass legislation without the approval of the House.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. All that these later Amendments do is to substitute the affirmative Resolution procedure for the negative Resolution procedure. Can the hon. Member for


Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) imagine the Local Government Bill for England and Wales being dealt with on the basis of an Order in Council subject to the affirmative procedure? Does any member of the Committee think that is a proper parliamentary process? Of course it is not.
The Parliament of Northern Ireland has on the stocks 60 Measures to be dealt with. Of those, 25 have been passed, some are in an early stage and some in a late stage. The Health and Personal Social Services Bill, for example, contains 109 Clauses and 17 Schedules. When that Bill comes before this House of Commons it will be in the form of an Order in Council and no one will be able to offer any amendment to it. There will be no Second Reading, no Committee stage, no Report stage. There will be a kind of abortive Third Reading with Parliament being entitled only to accept or reject the Measure.
If the Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to change the law in Scotland he must bring a Bill to the House of Commons, and that Bill must go through all the usual processes. But what is proposed in this Measure is so totally unparliamentary that it is breath-taking in its scope. The Minister designate will have the total power of legislation. The only people whom the Minister is entitled or has a duty to consult are the members of the Commission, which is his own creation and whose members are appointed by him and paid by him. These are the only people who will be entitled to look at the legislation in draft and to consider it.
It is all very well to say that we are taking power from a devolved Parliament back to the parent Parliament but we are doing no such thing. We are taking power from the devolved Parliament and giving it to the executive Government. This is totally wrong and contrary to all concepts of Parliamentary democracy. As a parliamentarian I object with every fibre of my being to giving this power to a Minister of the Crown—any Minister of the Crown in any Administration—however much I admire him.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Is it not worse than the Special Powers Act which has been complained of so often in the House of Commons?

Mr. Whitelaw: This point is rather like the last one. I fully realise the extent and nature of the powers which are temporarily transferred for one year. It might help my hon. and gallant Friend if I were to say that I am ready to discuss both with hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies and through the usual channels how best this legislation can be taken. As the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) said, the legislation will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure if the later Government Amendments are accepted. I am prepared to discuss how I or my Ministers would best be able to go through the legislation with hon. Members, and I hope to meet hon. Members on that basis.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One is always grateful for small mercies, but we must remember that the Bill is not conferring powers on my right hon. Friend but upon a Minister of the Crown. We do not know that my right hon. Friend will be the Minister of the Crown. We do not know that these powers will be exercised by this Government. One should never base one's thinking about legislation on ministerial assurances. I accept that that is my right hon. Friend's intentions, and it is helpful to have his assurance, but I profoundly object to giving to any Minister of the Crown, whoever he may be, this enormous power of legislation. My right hon. Friend says that the Bill is temporary, but many of the most tyrannical acts in history have begun as temporary measures—

Mr. Orme: Stormont.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Is the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) aware that for 52 years this absolute, tyrannical power which he has just described has been in the hands of one individual, namely, the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland? Why did not the hon. Gentleman when representing his constituents in this House object to these powers being held by that Minister?

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has completely missed the point. The Special Powers Act, which no doubt we shall be discussing, was debated by a Parliament


before it was passed. We are now proposing to put into the hands of the executive Government, not powers to make regulations, but powers of a legislature. We are to give them the powers of a Parliament—powers formerly held by a Parliament to which the people of a country elected representatives. All that is to be taken away and to be put into the hands of the executive Government.
This is why I so profoundly object to this procedure. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is an honourable man, and I accept the assurance which he has given. Nevertheless, I shall vote for this Amendment because I am totally opposed to the powers which are to be taken.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: I should like to take up the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): I should point out that there is a misprint in Amendment No. 13. It should read "line 10", not "line 16".

Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful for that correction, Sir Stephen. Many of the other Amendments which are to be dealt with in this group relate to the same matters mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Amendment No. 13 seeks to do very much the same thing as Amendment No. 10. On the other hand, it will be noticed that other Amendments to be taken with this Amendment No. 10 are Amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself on rather different points.
On the specific point relating to the rôle of this Parliament, we feel it wrong to have this form of delegated legislation. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us his reasons for saying that the Government believe it necessary to provide for legislation by Order in Council in the way in which provision is made in this Bill.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) said yesterday, on Second Reading, there are no doubt reasons why the Government wish to do this. First, it may be because the United Kingdom Parliament is likely to be subjected to too heavy a burden of work if it has to debate and to have

Committee stages on every piece of legislation on Northern Ireland which the designate Secretary of State deems to be necessary. On the other hand, I cannot believe it is right, setting out as we are on this extraordinary venture, that this Parliament should declare that it has not the time to consider the affairs of Northern Ireland. That would be an extraordinary assertion for the Government, or indeed for any hon. Member as a Parliamentarian, to make. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not advance that reason.
Looking at the other reasons, I feel that they rather scrape the barrel. It may be that this is being done so that legislation which is passed while Stormont is prorogued will have authority equal only to legislation passed by Stormont. There may be some hon. Members who would prefer that situation, but I personally would not. However, such a reason may be advanced by the Government. We on the Liberal benches feel that neither of these reasons would be sufficient to justify a major constitutional change.
It seems likely that in the next year citizens living in Northern Ireland would prefer legislation to be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament after debate than for orders to be made by the Secretary of State subject only to the veto of either House. I am sure that view will be widely held in Northern Ireland.
I turn to new Clause 1 and the Amendments which are to be taken with it on which we have asked for a separate Division. We find ourselves in the difficulty which I mentioned in a point of order at the beginning of the Committee stage, namely that this relates to an entirely different matter. We would have preferred a separate debate. However, I accept the limitations which have been imposed, and I hope that we shall be able to debate this matter very fully, albeit in the company of strange Amendments.
The Bill specifically makes provision for the way in which the Secretary of State designate is to operate the Special Powers Act. This is made quite clear in various provisions of the Bill, particularly in the Schedule. Paragraph 1of the Schedule requires the right hon. Gentleman, except in urgent cases, to


submit new regulations under the Special Powers Act to the Commission. Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Schedule provides that he cannot delegate powers to make regulations under the Special Powers Act, thus amending the provision of the Special Powers Act which provides for delegation. Paragraph 4(2) of the Schedule provides for regulations under the Special Powers Act to be annulled by Resolutions of either House of Parliament.
This matter lies at the heart of the Bill, and it is for this reason that we on the Liberal benches seek to raise this matter. The Special Powers Acts—I put it in the plural because there are a whole host of regulations which have gone with the legislation over the years—are a symbol of the suppression of races and creeds in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that this legislation is special restrictive legislation applying only to the minority in Northern Ireland—[Hon. Members: "No."] In theory, of course, it does not, but in practice it is restrictive legislation which has been used time and again as an instrument of discrimination against the minority in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. Gentleman knows that on many occasions I have decried the action of men of violence on both sides, though unhappily we know where the majority of men of violence come from. But is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are specific instances in the legislation to which he refers, some very well known, in which both the majority and the minority have been involved.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Might I ask the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) whether it is not the case that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was put inside under the Special Powers Act—[Interruption.] I now understand that he was not put inside.

Mr. Pardoe: I am not denying that that legislation has been used in isolated cases in respect of certain recalcitrant members of the majority, but it can be said that about 95 per cent. or more of all the instances in which this restrictive legislation has been used have involved the legislation being used as an instru-

ment of discrimination against the minority, and that it was so conceived.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Pardoe: I think I must get on with my speech, and if what I say does not satisfy the hon. Gentleman, then perhaps I can give way later.
We have here enshrined in this Bill Draconian laws which make a mockery of the whole concept of British justice and fair play. I am amazed in reading those laws that any Parliament that calls itself free could have passed them—still more, that it should continue to keep them in force. Perhaps they are best described in the conclusions of a commission of inquiry set up by the National Council of Civil Liberties which examined the purpose and effect of the Special Powers Acts and which reported in 1936. I make no apology for quoting one or two extracts from this report which has proved to be immensely prophetic. I do so not only as a Liberal Member but also as secretary of the Parliamentary Group on Civil Liberties. It said:
…through the operation of the Special Powers Act contempt has been begotten for the representative institutions of Government…that through the use of Special Powers individual liberty is no longer protected by law, but is at the arbitrary disposition of the Executive. This abrogation of the rule of law has been so practised as to bring the freedom of the subject into contempt…that the Northern Irish Government has used Special Powers towards securing the domination of one particular political faction and, at the same time, towards curtailing the lawful activities of its opponents. The driving of legitimate movements underground into illegality, the intimidating or branding as law-breakers of their adherents, however innocent of crime, has tended to encourage violence and bigotry on the part of the Government's supporters as well as to beget in its opponents an intolerance of the 'law and order' thus maintained. The Government's policy is thus driving its opponents into the ways of extremists.
That was in 1936, and I think that it shows that what was being said then was portraying an accurate prophesy of what was to come about—

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman and his Liberal friends surely cannot blind themselves completely to the true facts in Northern Ireland. It is true that these special powers were designed to restore law and order. It is well known in Northern Ireland that the I.R.A. has existed ever since the State was set up in 1920 and that there have been frequent


campaigns of violence. In the most recent one, hundreds of people have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured, and the I.R.A. has boasted that it is responsible. How else can one expect the special powers to be exercised, if not against the perpetrators of these terrible crimes?

Mr. Pardoe: I intend to come to that point. However, the very defence of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is that which has been put up for Draconian laws of this sort in every Fascist country in the world from time immemorial. They are reasons which will be put up again and again. They are specious and quite wrong. One can always find reasons why Governments should take these powers. But the Liberal view is that these powers can never be justified, except in the very shortest time scale.
As I shall seek to show, these laws have become not just legislation used for a temporary period. They have become built into the law of the land. That is where the real danger lies, and we are asked to perpetuate this situation in this Bill.
In my view, the continued existence of the Special Powers Act is a major cause of the events which have led inexorably to a civil war situation. As the British Civil Liberties Commission reported in 1936,
These laws are contrary to the fundamental principles of democratic government.
The Act was originally passed in 1922, no doubt in extreme conditions. It was intended to last one year. This Bill is intended to last one year. The Act was renewed until 1933. Then it was made to last indefinitely. That is the Act with which we are dealing in certain parts of this Bill.
It may be doubted whether any so-called free country has ever passed such an Act. It is somewhat doubtful whether there is such an Act on the Statute Book of any so-called unfree country. I doubt whether there are many countries which have Acts of this kind on their Statute Books. It is the kind of legislation that even totalitarian régimes are shy of passing and, when they do it, they usually do it solely to meet some great emergency. But this Act has become part of the ordinary law of the land, and that is the danger.
A few selected passages from the Act make the blood run cold. I was brought up to believe that one of the essential horrors in Nazi Germany was the fact that members of families and friends were invited, indeed obligated by law, to spy on each other. In Section 2(3) of the Act, we find these words:
It shall be the duty of any person who knows, or has good reason for believing, that some other person is acting, has acted, or is about to act, in contravention of any provisions of the regulations to inform the civil authority of the fact, and if he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence against the regulations.
That is to build a nation of common informers. I do not think that this Parliament can go along with that kind of legislation.
5.45 p.m.
Later in the Act we find that the offence is not defined specifically. It is unlimited. Its scope is left to the discretion of the authorities. Section 2(4) says:
If any person does any act of such a nature as to be calculated to be prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not specifically provided for in the regulations, he shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence against the regulations.
It is not provided for specifically. In other words, if we forgot some offence or it was not in our minds when the Act was passed, it is an offence now because the authority on high decrees that it shall be so. That is intolerable.
Again, we have the question of whether one is innocent until proved guilty, and on whom the burden of proof lies. Section 2(6) says:
Where under the regulations any act if done without lawful authority or without lawful authority or excuse is an offence against the regulations, the burden of proving that the act was done with lawful authority or with lawful authority or excuse shall rest on the person alleged to be guilty of the offence.
In other words, anyone infringing the Act has to prove his innocence.
The Act has been successively amended, but usually in the wrong direction. The authorities have taken more and more powers. However, rather than reading from Sections of the Act, which could take up a great deal of time, perhaps I might summarise the major provisions of it.
Under it the authorities have the power to arrest and search without warrant, and


to imprison without charge or trial. They can prohibit meetings and processions and declare a curfew. They can also punish by flogging. They can deny a claim to a trial by jury. They can arrest people required as witnesses, detain them against their will and force them to answer questions against their will. They can prevent a person imprisoned without trial seeing relatives or legal advisers. They can force people to be fingerprinted and photographed against their will. They can prohibit the holding of an inquest after a prisoner's death. They can arrest a person who by word of mouth spreads false reports or makes false statements.
That is a wide scope for any authority. They can prohibit the circulation of any newspaper. They can prohibit the possession of any film or even any gramophone record. They can arrest a person who does anything calculated to be prejudicial to the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order in Northern Ireland and not provided for in the regulations.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to make the Committee aware of a recent Amendment to these powers where not only does the Minister of Home Affairs have the right to arrest anyone and take them into his own custody, but may designate any other person into whose custody the arrested person may go. He can do it by two or three stages removed.

Mr. Pardoe: I have been through every one of the Amendments to the Act since 1922. I will not read out every single thing done in Northern Ireland in the name of law and order. But I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
Finally, under this Act, it is an offence to be a member of an unlawful association. What does this cover? It covers many organisations, including Republican clubs, Sinn Fein, or like organisations, however so described. This is a wide sweeping power. Not all this legislation is in force all the time, but it is there for the authorities to call on whenever they wish. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is necessary to have all the powers which I have just outlined?
Moreover, the Act is clearly in breach of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, to which the

United Kingdom is a signatory. Indeed, the Irish Government have referred the matter to the European Court.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman read the list of organisations which are banned, which include Sinn Fein, the I.R.A., and others. Is it not strange that these organisations come from one section of the community and that, for instance, we do not find the Orange Order banned by these regulations?

Mr. Pardoe: That is one of the criticisms which has been levelled at the Act throughout the years and one reason why the National Council for Civil Liberties is pledged against it.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is not the Ulster Volunteer Force also named?

Mr. Pardoe: No.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will look at paragraph 6 he will see that it is.

Mr. Pardoe: It is not named in my copy. It is not named in the latest Amendments. However, I see that the hon. Gentleman has a copy. As I said, I have been through the regulations in some detail, but it may be that even I have missed the latest Amendment. It is not a major point.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the very organisation to which I was referring in an earlier intervention? If he looks it up he will find that it is included. Is he aware that he is using an out-of-date version of the Special Powers Act anyway?

Mr. Pardoe: Indeed, it is not difficult. The hon. Gentleman made that point earlier and I answered it, but I will answer it again. It is true that the Act has been used against people of Protestant faith, but on isolated occasions. The great majority—

Mr. James Molyneaux: rose—

Mr. Pardoe: I must get on. I had better not give way again.
Does the right hon. Gentleman need all these powers? I suspect that he may say that he is prepared to review them, and I shall believe him absolutely. However, ought we, in a free Parliament, to leave it like that? I believe that we


should start from the other end. We should repeal the whole rag bag of the Special Powers Acts and regulations.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down South (Captain Orr) shakes his head. I know the point that he is on, but I have got there ahead of him. It is difficult, because the right hon. Gentleman may say, "There are certain of these powers which I shall need." Indeed, I might be prepared to give him certain powers. But why not repeal the Act now and ask the House for these powers? It is much better to start that way round than to leave it to the Secretary of State, or whatever authority is there, to make up his mind about what he needs.
I recognise that there is an awkward gap between the passing of the Bill and the time when the Secretary of State can come to the House and ask for the special powers which he believes he needs. However, that is the Government's problem. I believe that they should have repealed the Act and written into this Bill those special powers which they required so that we could debate them and give them in the new circumstances which have arisen. It is not too late. The Government can accept the new Clause and come back to us tomorrow—it will be past midnight—and ask for the powers that they need.
I want to know exactly what powers the Government do need. I should be jealous of giving the Secretary of State designate those powers, even if he asks. I am very jealous indeed of all the powers to be given to him by the passing of the Bill as it is without new Clause 1 being added to it. I think that we ought to make a new start on this road. Having taken the power and the responsibility to run the show from Westminster with all that that involves, we are now even more taking unto ourselves the responsibility for enforcing the Special Powers Acts and the Regulations. It seems that the Act is so totally against the principles for which this place stands that we cannot possibly allow it to go without challenging the Government on this point.
I hope that the Secretary of State designate will make some concessions on this matter. I hope that he will be able to assuage the fears not only of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, but of many other right hon. and hon. Gentle-

men. However, he will have to argue hard to do so. Unless he is able to do that, I would ask the Committee to accept new Clause 1 when the separate Vote which we have indicated comes to be taken.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 10. I will not, therefore, follow the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in what he has just said.
I support the Bill, because I believe that, a difficult decision having been taken, it is right that it should be given the chance to work and should have our full backing. Nevertheless, I have considerable sympathy with the points put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
We are depriving some of our people of parliamentary Government as we know it for at least a year. I profoundly hope that it will not be longer than a year. However, even this one year seems to pose a considerable problem to our consciences. The essence of what we are proposing in the Bill is to pass laws by Order in Council after draft orders have been approved by affirmative Resolution. Certainly this procedure gives us some little time to discuss these laws, but I understand that it is no more than an hour and a half. It also provides an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to make criticisms. No doubt when the draft orders make the transition into Orders in Council my right hon. Friend, who is, above all, sympathetic and responsive to the wishes of Parliament, will be willing to consider incorporating the changes which are put forward.
The fact remains that we are nevertheless ending the legislative process in Northern Ireland for this period. I hope that my right hon. Friend will carefully consider and perhaps give us further assurances on some of the implications of this.
In particular, it seems vital to try to evolve some more effective Committee procedure or substitute for Committee procedure. It may seem eccentric and masochistic of somebody who has just completed the Committee stages of the Housing Finance Bill to ask for further Committee procedure, but I believe that


it is vital that these enormously important laws should receive very full discussion. I should prefer the House of Commons to have taken over the legislative rôle in full for this one year. In other words, I should prefer the proposed laws to go through all the Parliamentary processes: Second Reading, Committee stage, Report, and so on. I believe that that is preferable to what we are doing.
I recognise—indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South made the point—that there is a substantial volume of legislation waiting to go through and that this could pose impossible strains on our system. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ask my right hon. Friend for a much fuller statement than we have had on why it is not possible for the House of Commons to legislate. I hope that it is not too late to give consideration to the point that we should treat these laws like any others. If my right hon. Friend can convince us that this is out of the question because of the volume of legislation, or for some other reason, I hope that he will at least go on to give careful consideration to the kind of ideas put forward in some of the Amendments which have not been called.
One proposition postulates the setting up of an Irish Grand Committee which would presumably debate at some length the body of legislation. I understand that Grand Committees do not have any real power of decision. They do not have power to vote down Amendments or to pass Amendments; they merely have power to observe and pass votes that have no force. However, this would be one vehicle for providing full discussion on the line by line and Clause by Clause details of a Bill, which is something which we have not got in the Bill at the moment.
Alternatively, there is the possibility of a Select Committee which could do the same. I am no expert in the procedures of the House and I do not think it would be right for me to go further than that, but I repeat that it is vitally important for my right hon. Friend to look carefully at these points. I hope that he will be able to give us more reassurance than we have had so far. He said in an earlier intervention that he is seized of the importance of this matter, but it is of such paramount importance

that we are entitled to hear more about it today.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

6.0 p.m.

Miss Devlin: I wish to follow the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and speak on new Clause 1, having tabledan Amendment which I was not fortunate enough to have selected. I therefore support this one which covers most of the details which my Amendment would raise. The hon. Member did not leave much to be explained about the way in which the Special Powers Act works. When hon. Members read the regulations under that Act they will begin to understand how we in Northern Ireland feel. The Act is an insult to our individual liberty, which is something which should be cherished by the Tory Government.
It is an insult to our individual liberty to ask us to continue under this legislation. The legislation says that all citizens, particularly those in Northern Ireland, who have consistently criticised the Government shall not have freedom to criticise and that almost from the day of their birth to the day of their death they are suspect citizens, subversive elements. In some way our whole being is contrary to the law because of the existence of this Act. I will give one or two examples which hon. Members may feel are small and petty, but which describe how the Act can work in the North of Ireland.
Recently I was travelling from my home to a public meeting in Northern Ireland and taking with me six dozen copies of a newspaper connected with a very small left-wing group, the Socialist Workers Movement, which is by no means an illegal organisation. That movement had never in any way come into conflict with any authority. It had existed for only six weeks. It had just produced the first copy of its newspaper, The Worker. I was stopped by the British Army, powers having been given to the Army by the House to use the diabolical Special Powers Act. I had to produce the copies of the newspaper.
A military policewoman looked at her list of proscribed organisations and she could not find the Socialist Workers Movement on the list. Nor could she find The Worker in the list of illegal


newspapers. That seemed reasonable for the movement had existed for only six weeks. She looked through the newspaper and found one photograph of a British paratrooper chasing a youth down a street. She said, "That is anti-British propaganda". When she had done that she managed to get the whole thing working because anti-British propaganda in the present circumstances was likely to lead to a breach of the peace and the paper could be confiscated under the Act. That newspaper in this country would be perfectly legal.
There can be similar situations when a person is walking down a street where perhaps there has been a riot and a policeman or a soldier imagines that he has seen, or he has seen, a number of youths run into a house. The Special Powers Act allows the policeman or a soldier to say that they thought it had happened and under the Special Powers Act they could go into that house and say that these people were suspect. Samuel Devenney did not only pay with his freedom but ultimately with his life because of the existence of this Act.
Now that this Government are taking over responsibility for Northern Ireland, it is not good enough for them to care for nothing but their own reputation and to say to other Governments or Heads of State, "It is not our responsibility, but we are somewhat embarrassed by our Northern Ireland colleagues". That will not work any more, because responsibility for this Act lies solely on the Secretary of State designate. In his own words, he is to do his duty to serve the community. Is he prepared not to use that legislation? Can he envisage himself in that almighty and powerful situation to direct and control other people's liberty? The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will personally review all cases of internees. It might be difficult for him to find them because under the Special Powers Act there is no necessity for cases to exist against internees. The onus of proof is on the internee.
Time after time constituents of mine who have appeared before Lord Justice Brown have asked what the cases alleged against them are so that they can prove their innocence. All that they have received has been scant notification that it is up to them to prove their innocence

and not for Lord Justice Brown to prove their guilt. They are given a small piece of paper which says:
We have reason to believe that you have acted, or are about to act, or were about to act, in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the State.
If someone made an accusation against the right hon. Gentleman that there was reason to believe he was guilty, how would he set about proving that he was not guilty?

Mr. Frank McManus: On the point about internees, may I put this to the Secretary of State designate—[Hon. Members: "Order."]—

Miss Devlin: Put it to me.

Mr. McManus: I put it to him through the hon. Lady. The Secretary of State designate has said in this House that he will review personally all cases of internees. Unless he invents some new method it has to be remembered that the information which he obtains will come from the sources which existed while Stormont was still in power—the Special Branch in Stormont. The old files will be there and all the old bad people who gave wrong information will still be there. I suggest to the Secretary of State designate through the hon. Lady that if he is to conduct a reasonably impartial review of each internee's case he will have to find different criteria, because the old criteria is clearly wrong, biased and unjust. He will have to use his considerable abilities to enable him to examine new criteria in those cases. If he relies on the old criteria I pity the internees.

Miss Devlin: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, just in case I might have forgotten about it.
I remind the Committee of two serious points. One of the main reasons that Stormont finally had to come to an end and finally could no longer exist is enshrined, perhaps, in the Special Powers Act. It is significant that Mr. Simon Winchester, now journalist of the year, no less, has said today that perhaps it was fitting that Stormont should have ended its days surrounded by barbed wire and securely policed. Perhaps it has ended because, almost from the very hour


of its inception, it existed under the Special Powers Act.
The fact that it existed in that way proved that it had not the ability, nor the mandate, nor the right, nor the concern, to govern without that kind of indiscriminate legislation. The Committee would do well to bear in mind that, if the British House of Commons made one tragic mistake by conferring the right to use those powers upon the British Army, it can put that mistake right by taking the powers off the Statute Book before they, too, are forced to admit, not only in this country, but internationally, that Britain itself cannot run Ireland without a plethora of emergency and repressive legislation.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I support the Amendment moved my my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), because I agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that it would be deplorable if it was thought that the House of Commons had not got time to consider laws necessary to Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that all the legislation ought to be laid before the House of Commons in proper form and not in the form of delegated legislation. This would raise formidable problems. There is already heavy congestion of our business. There is Scottish business. There is Welsh business. During questions on the Business Statement earlier today, I asked my right hon. Friend the acting Leader of the House about Question Time for Northern Ireland. That has to be fitted into a crowded programme. So there are serious practical problems if all the legislation affecting Northern Ireland is to be brought before the House in the regular way.
This reinforces the case which some of us have been putting for the earliest possible restoration of regional self-government in Northern Ireland. These are very difficult matters. The implication of what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North has said is not so much that we should destroy devolution to Northern Ireland as that we should try to restore it at the earliest possible opportunity and even, perhaps, to extend it through the British Isles. These are great matters, and perhaps in the present situation the Commission on

the Constitution which was headed by Lord Crowther ought to be addressing itself rather urgently to the future constitutional position in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said that Northern Ireland legislation should be treated like other laws. Although it is open to hon. Members to pray against delegated legislation, there is the strictest limitation on debate. What is more fundamental—this is why the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend reaches to the heart of the matter—is that legislation could be passed here by a majority in the House of Commons which would be against the wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. This, indeed, is a very serious matter. That a part of the United Kingdom should in effect be governed by decree, even against the will of its people, without the wishes of its people being able to be properly expressed, would indeed be "contrary to a fundamental principle of democratic government". That is a quotation from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North referring to the Special Powers Act.
6.15 p.m.
I turn now to that Act, which is the subject of a series of Amendments tabled by Liberal and other hon. Members. The Special Powers Act has been a regrettable feature of Northern Ireland life since 1922. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little selective in what he said about it. For instance, he said that it was used exclusively—at any rate, almost exclusively—against a section of the population. That case could be made, but it is true to add that the Orange parades were prohibited under this Act and I understand that Act was invoked against the U.V.F. in an earlier period, in 1964.

Miss Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman accept, when he speaks about bans on the Orange Order, if he is talking of bans on marches by that Order—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Parades.

Miss Devlin: —that these bans are made under the Public Order Act, not under the Special Powers Act?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for correcting me on that point. She might also have told the hon. Member for Cornwall. North that he, too, is working from the wrong


version. [Interruption.] The Liberal Party and I myself will be grateful to the hon. Lady for her help in the debate. I apologise for the mistake I made.

Mr. Pardoe: I want to clear up the point. The Act I quoted from is amended up to 1969. I searched the Library for all conceivable Amendments that had been made since, but I could find no additions to the list given in the Act. There may be additions, but I could not find any.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not making a great point of it, except that one matter which was interesting was when the hon. Gentleman quoted one Section which he said tended, to "build a nation of common informers". I should not have thought that Northern Ireland was rife with common informers at present. I do not think that hordes of people are battering at the doors of R.U.C. stations to lay information.
The Committee will admit that there is a need in such a situation as this for certain far-reaching, and even arbitrary, powers. My right hon. Friend who expects soon to be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would not undertake his task if he were not armed with certain far-reaching and arbitrary powers. They are one of the harsh realities of Irish politics.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, when he mentioned the list of banned organisations, thought that there should be no restriction passed on the freedom of action of Sinn Fein. That could be argued. What cannot be denied is that this is a situation when exceptional powers are needed. These powers, including the power to intern, the necessity of which we all deplore, have been used south of the border as well as north of the border.
As Tim Pat Coogan, who writes so authoritatively on the I.R.A., has recorded, allegations made of the maltreatment of internees in Long Kesh and elsewhere are far less horrifying than those which have been made by the I.R.A. against the security forces in Eire. A De Valera or a Lemass could be much more ruthless than a Brian Faulkner against revolutionary organisations presenting far more danger to Dublin than to Belfast.
It is really rather hypocritical to inveigh, as is so often done in this House, against the use of the Special Powers Acts north of the Border and assume that it is perfectly all right that such powers should be invoked south of the Border. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cornwall, North listed the Irish Republic as one of the totalitarian régimes because the Irish Republic has found it necessary to use this sort of legislation—the Offences Against the State Act—and has invoked this sort of power. If so, I take issue with him again, because I consider that to be a democratic régime which sometimes, for the purpose of defending the democratic order, has to resort to arbitrary powers.

Mr. Michael McGuire: While arguing that two wrongs do not make a right and condemning the Republic for this, I would point out that there is one essential difference. In the Republic, obnoxious as it is to intern anybody without trial, the charge against a person interned has to be presented to him after not longer than 14 days. Under this Act men are interned and can be held for ever and a day without any charge being made against them.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is indeed an important difference, but at the same time I would say that repression has been much more ruthless south of the Border than north of the Border. Revolutionaries were shot in the south of Ireland during the world war period. But I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing out one point of difference, because I am anxious that the opportunity should now be taken of transforming these special powers into proper legislation, and to that extent I am in agreement with the Liberal Party. I understand that it was intended that that should be done by Stormont, which now stands prorogued. My right hon. Friend the Lord President does not think so, and he probably knows better than I, but at any rate perhaps an opportunity will arise out of this of placing the special powers within the framework of proper statute law, because obviously some of them are completely obsolete. Reference was made to the power to inflict sentences of whipping. I do not believe that such a sentence has ever been imposed under this Act. I may be wrong, but I suggest that there are obsolete features as well as features


which are repugnent to hon. Gentlemen in this House.
It may be that now that the suspension of Stormont has brought this country into more direct confrontation with the I.R.A. we shall need some form of special powers for the United Kingdom as a whole. That, indeed, would present an opportunity for placing these powers within a framework of proper law, and I very much hope that that will be done. I am against the use of delegated legislation when it is unnecessary, or can be done without. Equally, I am against the use of arbitrary powers without adequate control by Parliament.

Mr. Orme: This is a very important debate. Many of us have raised the issue of special powers on a number of occasions in the House. Like internment, this is alien to our constitution and our society, and I do not think that any hon. Member on either side of the House wants to defend this sort of situation. We have heard the justifications put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for the introduction of such powers, but when I was in Northern Ireland prior to the beginning of the recent troubles in 1969 one of the issues that was embittering the minority community was the operation of these special powers, and the R.U.C., which came under severe criticism by the Hunt Committee, and the B Specials, who were then operating and used these special powers, helped to bring about the division in the society that so many of us want to eradicate.
The question has been raised whether or not hon. Members are quoting from the current Special Powers Act. All that we can obtain while debating the issue today is a photostat copy of that Act. It has many pages, but of course does not contain the latest Amendments in regard to the U.V.F. Where can this information be found? We can go to our own Library or Vote Office, which supplies us with information and regulations in connection with the legislation that we are now passing in this House. That is the situation that we are in, and I am sure that no lawyer in the Committee would like to defend such a situation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I went to the Library of the House today to obtain a copy and I got a recent copy with the U.V.F. listed as an illegal organisation. What are not available—and what are far more important—are the S.R.O.s, or regulations made under the Act. They have far more importance than even the Act, and they are very hard to obtain.

Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I always knew that his persuasive powers were much greater than mine, and I agree with him that the orders arising out of this Act are the important factors.
I should like to tell the Secretary of State designate in this regard that he is going to take over these regulations, passed by Stormont and supplemented and added to greatly since 1922, but passed by a Parliament which he and his Government have seen fit to prorogue. There is a very important point here, as to whether or not he is going to be responsible for the maintenance of these regulations. I want these orders to go completely. He might feel it necessary that certain regulations be brought in over the current emergency—I do not know—but if he has to bring in such orders he will have to present them to Parliament and justify them.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I had hoped to have the opportunity of saying this. The Secretary of State designate will not have to do this. He may have to introduce an Order in Council repealing the Special Powers Act. If so, he will do it on his own authority, and all that we can do is say "Yea" or "Nay"; we cannot say that we will have regulations 1, 2, 3 and 4 but not regulations 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that intervention. He will know that under a later Amendment regulations would have to be laid before the House, and Parliament would have the procedure in the Bill as it is now before House, and Parliament would have the right to examine any order that the Secretary of State designate made. Both my right hon. Friend and, I think, the Minister have put this down.
I should like to bring in aid in this argument the Hunt Committee Report.


Lord Hunt examined the question of the R.U.C. and the Special Powers Act itself. I refer the Committee to paragraph 143 of the Hunt Committee Report because I think it is worth putting on record what is said about this:
We considered also the position with regard to the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Acts (Northern Ireland) 1922–1943 and regulations made under the Acts. The common name, which we shall use, for the Acts and regulations is the 'Special Powers Act'. There has been much criticism of the Acts and on more than one occasion the Government"—
that is, the Stormont Government—
has considered repeal; but on each occasion fresh acts of violence have occurred, leading to pressure for retention of the Acts. A number of police officers with first-hand experience of dealing with riots and extremists told us that they considered that the powers given to them under the Acts were unnecessary, and that the relationship between police and public would be improved if the Acts were repealed.
I hope that the Leader of the House will pay special attention to the last words of that quotation. He is now moving into a new situation which has great dangers, but also great opportunities. It is his desire and his job to try to build up confidence in the community and that means creating confidence among the minority as well as the majority. I am not taking a one-sided view, but I believe that building confidence in the majority is as important as building confidence in the minority. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to build his bridges, these arbitrary powers of search and arrest without warrant where a police officer feels that it is necessary, must be removed, particularly if the police are to be allowed to enter areas which are closed to them at present.
6.30 p.m.
I recently spent three days in the Bogside, where the writ does not run for the police. They do not and cannot go in. The only Army post in that area has to be relieved daily by Saracen. Some of our soldiers are incarcerated in a little bunker for 16 or 20 hours and their presence aggravates the situation. If we want to see the writ running again confidence must be created, and it will be created only if people can see that the police, under the right hon. Gentleman's direction, operate and act impartially.
I am sure that everyone in the Committee wants to see this, and it is some-

thing that we must work towards. But it means creating confidence in the community. The regulations would be brought in in a democratic State only in the most extreme circumstances, and would last only for a minimum period. An example of these measures were the special powers taken by the Government in the fuel emergency, which removed the power of Parliament. Many of us were unhappy at that, just as we were unhappy at the use of similar powers by a Labour Government. But in Northern Ireland the regulations, which have been in existence since 1922, have grown, like Topsy, into pages and pages, and they ought to be swept aside. They have certainly not helped to keep law and order. They have not helped the situation any more than interning 900 people has reduced the violence. Such measures do not help in a democracy. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has left the Chamber. He supports the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland and he supports similar powers in Rhodesia. In that country can be seen extreme cases where people have been interned for nine years. That sort of thing can go on indefinitely.
The Leader of the House is committed to a review of internment, and he recognises that it is a barrier to progress in the present situation. But the same can be said of the Special Powers Act. I do not believe that its removal would in any way undermine the powers of the police, just as I do not believe that in a proper society a separate police force and a separate army, like the B Specials, are necessary. If a society is properly regulated, and if all people in that society feel that they can use the law with confidence, they are not essential. But a section of the community in Northern Ireland does not believe that it can use the law with confidence. It feels that the law has been biased, and the Special Powers Acts are an example. We are celebrating their 50th year and it is about time we got rid of them. If we cannot sustain a democracy without these powers, something is radically wrong.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Would the hon. Member say whether he would have supported the use of Regulation 18B during the last war to intern those thought to be in sympathy with the Nazis and the Fascists?

Mr. Orme: We were involved in that war and we were not very pleased with the people who were selling us down the river. The Government took special powers, but there were procedures for appeal, and there were special procedures and certain rights under those powers. The powers were taken only for a minimum period of time.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend recall that Regulation 18B was debated in the House of Commons and that some hon. Members of this party were very concerned about it, and forced a Division?

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in this matter. Democracy is faced with a dilemma of whether to take special powers in times of crisis. I tend to oppose taking such powers. I tend to be in favour of allowing democracy to exist, and of permitting the freest expression of opinion. I know that there are great difficulties, especially if it leads to violence and the use of arms. But even Regulation 18B powers were held only for about 4½ years, and some of those who were interned were given very kind treatment—perhaps they were a lot better off than many of us who were abroad in uniform.

Mr. Carol Mather: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that some special powers might soon be necessary in this country to deal with the I.R.A. here and to make it an illegal organisation?

Mr. Orme: We have proper laws in our society which can impose pretty severe sanctions and sentences. I believe that those laws can stand up and can be properly implemented. The trouble in Northern Ireland is that because of the loss of confidence by a large section of the community it has not been possible to maintain the authority to carry out those laws. Once the Government start on the slippery slope of taking special powers and adding to them they cannot get rid of them. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that when internment was started there were a few people who had proved to be violent who it seemed would be interned. Before one knows where one is, there are one or two internment camps. The right hon. Gentleman will be faced with a fantastic task of dismantling something the creation of which many of us

disagreed about. We know that the British Army disagreed about it. Now the Government have the terrible task of dismantling it. It will not be easy.
The same thing applies to special powers. We get laws and then tend to lean on them and to use them. They become matters of everyday usage, and normal democratic procedures are swept aside.

Mr. Rose: In support of what my hon. Friend says, I wonder whether he is aware that a quite independent commission of Belgian lawyers has looked into this and concluded that in present circumstances peace and order in Northern Ireland would be sufficiently protected by ordinary law. Would he not agree that hon. Members opposite are concentrating entirely on internment, whereas the special powers provide, for example, for the refusal to hold an inquest into the death of a person in police custody? How can any hon. Member justify that as one of the things in the Special Powers Act? There is nothing in that which helps to combat the I.R.A. It is purely something that could conceal brutality.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for giving that information to the House. It would be possible for all of us to make long speeches about the Special Powers Act and to read out large parts of it, and so on. Probably most hon. Members are aware of it. I am dealing with the principle with which we are faced. I am deeply concerned about it.
In many ways the Special Powers Act is one of the kernels of the problem with which we are trying to grapple. It is a failure of a society which cannot rule 1½ million people in an acceptable way. I listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, who is very knowledgeable about Northern Ireland. He spoke about the Secretary of State designate having powers to pass legislation and do all sorts of things which many of us, perhaps, are not too pleased about.
I come from a conurbation of about 2½ million people. Under the Local Government Bill it will be a county authority, which will have a million more people than Northern Ireland. When we recognise that the size of the problem can be magnified and that there is a representation in the House—if one takes away


security and defence, on which no other part of the United Kingdom has its own powers or ever has had—we realise that it is social and economic issues which are involved in Northern Ireland.
Some people do not want complete unification. I understand those who genuinely hold that point of view. I understand those who wish for a united Ireland, as I do. But that has to be arrived at peacefully. The issue has to be left open for those in Ireland to decide their destiny. We do not want to close the door on arguments of that sort. Therefore, we do not want regulations such as the Special Powers Act, which do not assist but hinder the matter.
It is a moral issue, as much as any other, that faces us as a democratic society, with the Six Counties at present part of the United Kingdom. It is an open admission of defeat that we cannot govern without Draconian measures such as this. I hope that the Secretary of State designate will take this into account and give the Committee real assurances about what he will do in this matter.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I shall try to appeal to the Committee in as non-partisan a way as possible. Yesterday considerable urgency was expressed for my right hon. Friend to take appropriate action in Ulster as soon as possible. He has bent over backwards already, in what he has said so far, yesterday and today, to make it absolutely clear that he is extremely conscious of the obligations that he will have to the House of Commons for everything that he does. If we pursue all these Amendments as deeply as we are pursuing this one we shall merely delay the possibility of my right hon. Friend's getting on with the job which we all want to see him carrying out as effectively as possible and as soon as possible.
I recognise the need for an enormous sense of understanding by my hon. Friends the Ulster Unionists in the Committee for the very grave decision that the Government have taken and the appalling position that it puts them in. But even in this small debate we are already in danger of losing sight of what we have to tackle. We can utter a great deal of hyperbole, with respect, about the civic rights which we all know to be deeply

embedded and enshrined in everything that we hold sacred in the House of Commons. We can delay on them; but if we do we shall protract discussion all through the night. What the condition of my right hon. Friend will be at the end of it, after all the stress that he has been through in the last week, I do not know.
We have expressed our regrets in the Second Reading debate. Many hon. Members have spoken outside the House of Commons about their feelings on this matter. My appeal to the Committee is that, in so far as it is possible, we should try to curtail the debate on each of the Amendments to the minimum, rather than drag it out.
In conclusion, I feel that we must keep in mind the whole time what my right hon. Friend will have to fight when he gets to Ireland. In that spirit, and in a way which is as non-partisan as possible, I appeal to all hon. Members to let the Committee get on with its business.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Fitt: In listening to the speeches about the Special Powers Act, I believe that it would be for the benefit not only of this Committee but of the whole country that every regulation of that Act should be written into the record of the House of Commons. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) who, perhaps unintentionally, wished to curtail discussion on this Amendment. That is why we have had so much trouble in Northern Ireland.
I remember coming to Westminster in 1966. I wore out three or four pairs of shoes running up and down to the Table Office, trying to put down Questions about Northern Ireland, with the help of my hon. Friends. We were told, "This is a matter for Stormont, not a matter for this House." In debates on Consolidated Fund Bills we raised points of order to highlight what was happening in Northern Ireland. That was the only way in which we could discuss the situation then developing there.
I respectfully suggest to all hon. Members that this is a major debate, and that the British public should be made aware of what has been happening in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act. I have noticed that some hon. Members today have been trooping up and down


to the Library. It is obvious from their reactions that they have never read the Special Powers Act. Many of them were amazed at some of the regulations and Sections of that Act. But every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland is aware of just what effect this Draconian legislation can have on their everyday lives.
I want to relate a personal experience. In 1935 I lived in Dawson Street. I live only a few yards from it now. A curfew had been imposed then, under the Special Powers Act, to allow a very provocative Orange Order parade to pass the end of the street. I did not understand then that there was a Special Powers Act, and that a curfew had been imposed under it. As a kid of nine years, all that I was concerned about was to listen to the music of the bands. I ventured a little further than I should have done, to the end of the street, to see the band. I was lifted by a B Special—I did not even know what a B Special was then—acting under the Special Powers Act, and slapped very heavily on the face—under the Special Powers Act. I wondered why I had been so treated by that man, but I learnt the next day just why I was chased out of the area. It was because there was a curfew under the Special Powers Act. That was my introduction to the Act.
Every youngster in Northern Ireland, particularly in the New Lodge Road, Ballymurphy and the Bogside, knows the Sections of the Act. When soldiers come into a house to raid it at three or four o'clock in the morning, kids aged 10 or 11 will say, "Under what Section are you raiding the house? Regulation 10 or Section 7?" These youngsters know almost every Section in the Act.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) read from a report issued by a delegation of the National Council for Civil Liberties in 1936. Few hon. Members knew about it. He quoted the findings of the delegation which I regarded, when I first read it, as a damning indictment of the operation of the Act in 1936. I am sure that the Committee will be interested to know that one of the eminent persons on that delegation of inquiry into the Act, which came to such a damning conclusion on its operation, was none other than you, Mr. Mallalieu.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Whatever my past may have been, I hope that

the hon. Gentleman will think that my present is impeccable.

Mr. Fitt: I thought that the Committee should be made aware of the fact, Mr. Mallalieu, because I believe that that condemnation of the Act in 1936 should have had some effect on the deliberations which have taken place in the House since then. One of the tragedies of the situation is that there has not been discussion of these matters, and this has been one of the factors leading to the disastrous position in Northern Ireland. Almost every Act passed by the House since that condemnation has had the words,
This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland
attached to it. I wonder whether the Secretary of State designate would be prepared to write into this Bill, in relation to the Special Powers Act, "This Act shall not extend to the United Kingdom except Northern Ireland".
What an indictment that would be! If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to write those words into the Bill, it can be taken that within a short period the Act could be extended—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)—to any other part of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend has said, when one starts to operate such powers for any part of the United Kingdom, the danger is that they will be operated for the whole of it. Not only should the Secretary of State examine these powers to see whether he could dispense with some of them; he should consider the abolition of the whole notorious Draconian Act.
If there is any need for emergency regulations, they should be promulgated through the House, and we should not be taking the left-overs from such an institution as Stormont. I am sure that the Committee will agree that even at the height of the two World Wars, with all the emergency legislation and the powers that the British Government had at their disposal, nothing even approximating to the Special Powers Act was contemplated, much less used. Never, since mediaeval times, has anyone on this side of the Irish Sea had to live under such Draconian legislation.
Is the Secretary of State designate prepared to defend the Act in the councils


of the world—in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, in the United Nations and in the diplomatic discussions which he will be having with E.E.C. countries? Is he prepared to defend the Act which the Council of Europe and the United Nations have condemned? Altogether, 22 of the regulations under the Act are in complete violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. How can the British spokesmen at the United Nations or at the Council of Europe say, "We are operating these powers not at the behest of the Northern Ireland Government but because we were forced into a position of accepting them"?
A good deal will depend on the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members have laid stress on the internment question. It is urgently necessary that he should look at every case of internment. He will find himself in extreme difficulty in accepting some of the recommendations which have led to the internment of the individuals concerned. There are no criteria. The only basis are the reports of the Special Branch in Northern Ireland. I do not say that all of them are biased, but many of them are. What criteria will be used by the right hon. Gentleman in determining whether or not an individual should be released?
At the moment, the Army, particularly in the New Lodge Road, Ballymurphy and other areas, is still carrying out arrests. It is still making the early morning raids. It is doing it without the help of the Special Branch. At one time, the troops had to be accompanied by an officer of the R.U.C. Now they are acting of their own volition. Now that the Westminster Government have assumed power, they will be acting under the Special Powers Act. The soldiers tell the person in the house raided that they are acting under Regulation 10 or Section 7 or Regulation 11. Will they still be acting on information given to them by the Special Branch?
It is not too difficult to imagine a Special Branch officer who has a particular dislike for someone who is, perhaps, of a different faith, or a different way of political thought, passing on information to the Army—and the Army will have to do the dirty work. It will have to search the house, acting on infor-

mation which in the first instance could have been phony. When that sort of thing happens, most of the people living in that household, in that street and in that district are forced to adopt an anti-British Army attitude, a hostile attitude towards those who have raided the house so unjustly.
The right hon. Gentleman will have to be very careful about the way in which the Special Powers Act is to continue—if it is to continue to be used. With the support of my hon. Friends, I have every intention of calling for the total repeal of the Act, because I have lived under it for almost 50 years. I would not want to wish it on any hon. Member, not even the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I would not wish anyone to live under an Act of Parliament so Draconian. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has attempted to justify the existence of the Act by saying that at one time it was used against the Ulster Volunteer Force. It was never so used. The Northern Ireland Prime Minister of the day, Captain O'Neill, said in Stormont that he would use the Act to prohibit the U.V.F. coming into being. What happened when internment was brought in? Surely there will be no argument about the fact that the explosions carried out in 1968, 1969 and 1970 were the work not of the I.R.A. extremists but of extremists who wanted to drive Captain O'Neill out of office. At that time it was recognised that those persons were acting in a subversive way. Why was it that on 9th August this year those persons who were well known to the police were not served with internment orders?

Mr. Maginnis: I can give the hon. Gentleman the answer. He knows perfectly well that some people who were engaged in illegal activities were found guilty by the courts and sentenced while the others were discharged by the courts.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Fitt: That is not a valid argument, because within the past three months—and I limit it to three months—many Protestants and Catholics have been brought before the courts in Northern Ireland, charged with illegal possession of arms. If they were Protestant and were acquitted they walked from the court free men. If they were Catholic and were acquitted by a Protestant jury, when they walked from the


court they were immediately arrested by the Special Branch. Those are some of the cases the Secretary of State designate will have to examine. They were found not guilty in the courts, and immediately served with internment orders. The argument advanced by the hon. Member does not hold water, and will not bear scrutiny by anyone with an impartial mind.
Of all the new Clauses this is the most important. There will undoubtedly be some difficulty with the other Amendments in relation to the take-over by the Secretary of State designate. Unless and until the Special Powers Act, 1922, is removed from the Statute Book there can be no real hope of bringing together the communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Evelyn King: I listened with considerable sympathy to the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) all of whom spoke on the same theme. No one listening to a description of the special powers could do anything other than have sympathy with what they were saying and regret at what has been done over many years. I was glad that they expressed themselves in the way they did and particularly glad to hear the hon. Member for Cornwall, North speak of the lack of every kind of democratic safeguard to which we have become accustomed when passing legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
I doubt whether it is realised, except by those who heard the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) just how far we have gone by this Bill in destroying the democratic principles in the observance of which each one of us was brought up—no taxation without representation; one man, one vote—the supreme value of the democratic election. The point I seek to make to hon. Members opposite is that I fail to understand their logic. Last night they voted for a Bill which says:
…the Secretary of State shall act as chief executive officer as respects Irish services instead of the Governor of Northern Ireland…
It says later on:
…Her Majesty shall have power by Order in Council to make laws for any purpose…

It is no good voting for that on Tuesday night and on Wednesday afternoon complaining of a lack of democracy.

Mr. Pardoe: There is a long-standing custom that even when one has grave reservations about parts of a Bill one sometimes votes for Second Reading and reserves one's position according to the attitude of the Government on Third Reading. I cannot speak for my hon. Friends but it is no secret that I voted for the Second Reading last night with a considerably heavier heart than most of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I would strongly suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until Third Reading to discover how I shall vote in the light of what the Government have to say on this and other Amendments.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought it was fair to point out that we are in a situation very different from what is commonly understood. When hon. Gentlemen opposite point out the necessity for removing the Special Powers Act, what they must also be able to show is that in the new circumstances the chances of being able to remove the more offensive parts of that Act are likely to be increased. That is a theme upon which I have not heard anyone dwell.

Miss Devlin: Since the hon. Member is referring to all of us on this side of the Committee who raised the Special Powers Act today it is only fair that he should remember that I did not vote for this Bill. I voted against it.

Mr. King: I take the hon. Lady's point. If we are to consider the Special Powers Act we must look back to see what we did last night. We did not set out, as some speeches opposite might have given the impression, to improve the Parliament at Stormont, we did not set out to introduce reforming measures which might make government in Ireland easier—proportional representation, special posts for Catholics, integration, or a dozen other things. Had these been introduced I could understand the speeches made about the Special Powers Act.
What we have done over a substantial proportion of the soil of the United Kingdom is to abolish representative Government, and I find it hard to see a Liberal bench come forward in favour of that proposition. This is what worries me. We have set up a chief executive officer who, it is suggested can govern a country


from London without representation in any essential matter. It is argued that he will be able to do this. How? He will do it with 17 battalions of British infantry, nearly half the British Army. This is his only instrument. Further, he will do this certainly not in the face of diminished hostility from those who live in the island. One must say there is likely to be increased hostility. It is a small point but I read with horror on the tape this afternoon that a woman who having been petrol-bombed has now died. The next sentence was:
Ulster has returned to normal.
There in two succesive sentences is the irony of what is happening.
I must draw attention within the context of the Special Powers Act to the way in which this new move is likely to work. I hope I may be wrong and I hope that hon. Gentleman opposite may be right. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than that. But if I were asked to prophesy the future in the next few weeks or months when representation has been removed, when we are dependent upon the Army and nothing else, I am afraid that I would prophesy an increased rather than a diminished use of the Special Powers Act. We have abolished a Parliament.
I reckon I know Dublin reasonably well. When I walk around Dublin, when I visit the Dail, when I see statutes I see almost everywhere a recorded image, which has formed a legend through a century of Irish history, of what the British did to Dublin. They took away their Parliament. For a hundred years that legend to a large extent brought about Irish resentment. We would be failing in our duty if we were able to see in this Bill another Parliament taken away without raising questions of this kind.
I conclude by saying to hon. Gentlemen opposite, sadly, that I do not believe this will work. This Bill cannot work. Great as is my sympathy with the hon. Member for Salford, West and his friends—much as I understand their concern, their desire to see this Act go—I do not believe that in voting for the Bill last night he and his hon. Friends did anything likely to promote the object they have in mind. What they do is increase the very dangers they deplore.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) and be brief. I have considerable sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I think it was. It is right when we are passing a Bill of this sort that the House of Commons should be absolutely clear about what it is doing.
We are, in effect, creating government by decree, by Order in Council. It is not a question, I say with respect to the hon. Member for Dorset, South, of dissolving a parliament. We are not. Had we been dissolving a parliament, and had we taken to this House powers which that Stormont Parliament at present operates, then I would have no constitutional complaint.
Speaking for myself, I should think that Northern Ireland would be better run from Westminster than it has been from Stormont for the last 50 years. But we are not doing that. Indeed, specifically this Bill is to enact not that the Stormont Parliament is to be dissolved but that the Stormont Parliament is to be prorogued. Therefore, in law, as I see it—and I hope that somebody at some stage in these debates will give an answer to this point—such powers as are at present devolved upon the Northern Ireland Parliament remain in Northern Ireland. They do not, as I understand it, come here to the House of Commons in Westminster. What, therefore, is to happen under this Bill, as I understand it, is that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is now to operate the legislative powers which by successive Acts of the Westminster Parliament have been devolved upon the Parliament in Stormont.

Mr. Kilfedder: Would the hon. and learned Member not agree that under this legislation Members of the House of Commons can put Questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as he then will be, on matters which at the moment are strictly for the Members of the Stormont Parliament, and that we can put Written and Oral Questions?

Mr. Richard: I certainly hope so. If I did not believe that I would be more appalled at the constitutional arrangement which is to be brought about by this subsection (3) of this Clause.
However, I think it is important that the Committee should realise that what we are not doing is taking to ourselves legislative authority which up to now has been exercised by Stormont. It will not, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), be for the House of Commons to say we will approve the operation of Regulations 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the Special Powers Act regulations. We could not do that. We would have no initiative or legislative power to do it under this proposal. What would happen, if the Secretary of State were to agree that this House of Commons should have initiating power over what Special Powers Regulations should be used, would be that he would first have to come to the House with an Order in Council, repealing the whole of that Act.
One of the great difficulties which I see in the structure proposed in this Bill is that when he comes to the House of Commons with a legislative proposal of his own he will be coming with an order which we will discuss by the affirmative procedure but which we cannot amend. It will not be open to the House to try to amend it, or any legislation which the Secretary of State may bring up. All we shall have power to do will be to say "Yea" or "Nay", and say whether we approve or not what he is doing. While I have sympathy with what we are doing we should be quite clear that we are creating a statutory Czar of Ulster. It may be necessary, and it may be that in the person of the present Secretary of State we have the nicest, most pleasant, most effective czar which the House at this time can produce. But we must be absolutely clear about what it is that we are doing.
Speaking as a lawyer, the proposition enshrined in this subsection (3) is one which appals me. I was brought up, and I think most hon. Members were brought up, in the belief that if somebody is to be legislated for he ought to have the right to a say about the terms of that legislation. Some hon. Members may now be saying "Hear, hear", but I fear that they will not be in two or three minutes' time.

Mr. Callaghan: Get them while you can.

Mr. Richard: I wonder where they will come from.
However, as I understand it, it will not in any shape or form be possible for there to be such a say by this House of Commons in considering any legislation which the Secretary of State may propose for the good order and government and security of Northern Ireland. We just do not have the power to do it. I would say to my hon. Friends on this side that whereas we may be very pleased to see the present Secretary of State there, I can imagine—and it does not take a great deal of imagination to see it—that if other occupants of the Government Front Bench were to be the people to have these Draconian powers given them I would be extremely worried about it. It will not be possible for the House of Commons to consider in detail the legislation which might be proposed. As I said a moment ago, by all means let us have government by decree; by all means let us create this genial, statutory Czar of Ulster; but let us be clear about what it is we are doing.

Mr. Orme: Surely my hon. and learned Friend must not get this out of perspective. We are not taking power away from another country abroad. We are talking about taking it away temporarily from part of the United Kingdom.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend is about two steps ahead of me. All I am trying to emphasise at this stage of what I want to say, which, I hope, will be brief, is that we are giving to the Executive enormous legislative and initiative powers which, as far as I know, the House of Commons of this country has never given to the Executive over any part of the United Kingdom. We have never done it, not even in time of war.
Therefore, there are, it seems to me, only two questions which have to be answered. The first question is, is the giving of this enormous power to the Secretary of State justified or is it not justified? Secondly, if it is justified, what additional arrangements have to be made?
I think it is utterly and totally justified as a temporary measure. The Government at Stormont have, in my opinion, over 50 years forfeited their right to be


treated as a democratically elected assembly. They have not operated as a democratically elected assembly in the interests of the whole of the people of that province. If I may say so to hon. Gentlemen opposite, over a large part of the time, for the past decade at any rate, they seem to have operated more in the interests of the Unionist Party, even perhaps of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, than in the interests of the good government of the majority of the people.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Richard: If the hon. Member insists.

Mr. Evelyn King: I am not insisting, but asking. Would the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that though there may be a case for reform of the Ulster Parliament—and there certainly was—that is a wholly different matter from the case for abolition? When we abolish or destroy a parliament, we violate the country, with effects which may last for generations.

Mr. Richard: It is interesting to hear the hon. Member talking of the case for reform. Some Members of this House of Commons, notably on this side, have been advocating the case for constitutional reform in Ulster with a great deal of vigour and a great deal of noise over a large number of years. The hon. Member was not exactly notable for his support for those reforms which were proposed from this side of the Committee. There is a strong case for reform of the constitutional arrangements under which Northern Ireland has been governed for 50 years. The hon. Member's support for that case is somewhat tardy, to say the least of it.
Again, I would say to the Secretary of State and to the Committee that I support this Bill; I support giving him these Draconian powers as a temporary measure because the Parliament at Stormont has forfeited its right to be considered as a democratic assembly. It was an assembly which could not even guarantee the security or the property of the people in the Province until the House of Commons and the Government here, and the previous Government, notably my right hon. Friend the Member for

Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the then Prime Minister, spoke in very strong terms to the Government in Stormont about reforms which had been obviously needed for many years. Not until then were they conceded by that legislative Chamber.
Therefore, if I am forced into a balance of inconvenience, on whether or not Stormont exists in the form in which it has existed up to now or whether it is temporarily expedient to put these powers into the hands of the Secretary of State, at this moment of time I prefer to see the legislative authority for the Province of Ulster exercised by the right hon. Gentleman rather than by Stormont as it previously existed.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: rose—

Mr. Richard: I have only one more point to make, and I am trying to be brief. Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
My final point is one made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury, that if we are to give the Secretary of State these powers, enormous as they are, there must be some form of Parliamentary control and overseeing of the way in which he exercises them. Question Time and an affirmative Resolution of the House will not be sufficient. Somehow he must devise a satisfactory parliamentary system to deal with Measures which would have been considered by the Parliament at Stormont, where there would have been a Committee stage, and each word and comma, each jot and tittle, of a Bill would have been considered. Somehow or other a parliamentary system of control must be devised here.
The Bill is to cover a period of 12 months. I should not be in favour of passing it for a longer period. Indeed, in some ways I think that perhaps the period of 12 months—

The Chairman: Order. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is going a little wide of the Amendment. His speech is tending to have more of a Second Reading character.

Mr. Richard: I accept the rebuke, Sir Robert. I am just about to end.
All I am trying to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we give him these


powers and wish him well in what he is doing, but it is up to him and the Government to devise a better way in which we can see with greater clarity and detail exactly what he will be doing in Northern Ireland.

The Chairman: Before I call the next hon. Member, I should like to announce that following on the exchanges at the beginning of these proceedings I am now prepared to select Amendment No. 43, in the Schedule, in page 4, line 31, leave out from 'days' to 'after' in line 32 and insert:
'(being forty days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting, and on which the Standing Orders and practice of each House, respectively enable such business to be taken in Orders of the Day)'.
in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). We may discuss with it Amendment No. 51, in the Schedule, in page 4, line 43, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 44 and insert:
'during a period of forty days, being days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting and on which Standing Orders and practice of each House, respectively enable such business to be taken in Orders of the Day'.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert. I think that will be for the convenience of the whole Committee.

Mr. Harold Gurden: I have listened with great interest to the speeches about the special powers and the enormous powers given in the Bill to my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I am impressed by the display of conscience with regard to the special powers. We must share the feelings of disturbance at the implementation of such powers in Northern Ireland. I appreciate the inconvenience to people whose houses have been raided at three or four o'clock in the morning, and the serious inconvenience to people who are taken into custody. But against all that we must weigh the bloodshed and the lives lost. If there is inconvenience and hon. Members' consciences are disturbed, as we have heard today, that is well worth while in a state of war such as has existed in Northern Ireland. The enormous loss of life and the dreadful things that have happened there have fully justified a Special Powers Act. Whether or not those special powers have been properly

applied is another matter. I do not know. I have not been there. I have not experienced the situation at first hand. Most certainly we should need such special powers in this country—I should need them in my constituency—if there were here the bloodshed and dreadful loss of life that has been happening in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend is in good company. While most of us dislike the idea of special powers very much, in 1969 the then Prime Minister, now Leader of the Opposition, endorsed the fact that the Northern Ireland Government had no option but to use them then, long before tension rose to the height we have seen recently. He said that no Government in their senses could conceivably at that time do away with the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Gurden: Many things are said by people in Government that are different from what is said when they are in Opposition. I fully appreciate those words.
I, too, am concerned about the very wide powers given to my right hon. Friend. I should be very concerned about such powers being given to anyone. But, like other hon. Members, I voted for the Bill last night because on balance it seemed to me the only way out of the difficulty. But if it had not been temporary, that would have been a different matter.
One thing that should have been in the package deal was a decision on passports or identity cards and the border. Enemies of this country can come from a foreign and alien State, sometimes through Northern Ireland, to collect money and social security benefits here and return to Ireland and use them for the I.R.A. With the very wide powers that he will have, does my right hon. Friend intend to consider the question of passports and identity cards? As I see it, his powers would include the power to introduce passports or an identity card system.
I mention this particularly because of the trouble we have had in my constituency and in Birmingham generally, where there are I.R.A. sympathisers and supporters. We saw them at work in the recent strike. We may need special powers in Birmingham if this sort of thing goes on.
Unless the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland and this country is sealed, I foresee greater difficulties and more bloodshed. We must remember Aldershot. What can happen there can happen in Birmingham.
Ministers have argued that it is impossible to seal the border. It may be very difficult, but I am sure it is not impossible. One thing that is possible is for my right hon. Friend to introduce legislation in Northern Ireland requiring the use of identity cards or passports, and he can seal the border between Northern Ireland and England. If he did so, many of the risks would be reduced. We must accept the argument that it is difficult, but to say that it is impossible is ridiculous. It is a question of how many lives will be lost. At some stage this system will have to be introduced, and I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend—

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must ask him to tell me to which of the group of Amendments he is addressing himself. Unless the Chair keeps some check on how the debate goes we shall never finish.

Mr. Gurden: I have been talking about new Clause 1 and the special powers. Before you came to the Chair, Sir Robert, this was mentioned. I should like to have a reply from my right hon. Friend, because I am pessimistic about the operation of the Bill, although I voted for it. I think the time will come when the problems will be transferred from Belfast to Birmingham.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: The logic of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) is that we should have a yellow star system as there was in Nazi Germany so that people can be discriminated against. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like people to go around with shamrocks or oranges tattooed on their forearms. Perhaps he would like to have a system in which people parted their hair in a particular way to show the division in Ireland.

Mr. Gurden: The people I am talking about were supporters of the Nazis during the war. They are the people who are still coming here.

Mr. McGuire: That is a slander.

The Chairman: Order. We must try to keep within the terms of the Amendments. I hope all hon. Members will help me.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Selly Oak might also remember that a considerable number of men from Southern Ireland served in the British Army during the war and there are many in the British Army now. Many of the airfields built in this country during the war were built by Irishmen. If the hon. Gentleman fears that this sort of legislation will be needed in Birmingham, from the record of what he has said on a number of similar issues, he will bring it upon himself, and he deserves everything he gets. He and people like him have suddenly found a need to reform Stor-mont—not to abolish it. There have not been so many conversions to the reform of Stormont since the Chinese general baptised his troops with a hosepipe. The hon. Gentleman should remember that it is a great thing to go before the Holy Ghost asking for a conversion after death, and this is what Stormont and the people who support it have done.
My hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and I, long before this trouble started, when we were new Members of Parliament, said, "Look at what is happening in Ulster, look at the rotten ness at the core. If the Government do not do something about it"—it was a Labour Government at the time—"it will explode in our faces." We were told that there was a convention that we must not talk about it, we must leave little Ulster alone. It was the Conservative Front Bench that for 13 years was more responsible than anyone else—

The Chairman: Order. I do not want the hon. Member to get carried away with the exuberance of his oratory. He must try to keep to the Amendments. Perhaps the hon. Member will tell me to which of the Amendments in this group he is addressing himself.

Mr. McNamara: I am addressing myself to each Amendment on this Clause that you have chosen. Sir Robert. I am addressing myself to those Amendments which concern the transfer of legislative power and also to new Clause 1 which


is concerned with the Special Powers Act. I have not started on that one yet.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has been talking about democracy. Perhaps he should describe his sort of democracy to the Committee, because—

The Chairman: Order. That is just what the hon. Member must not do. The hon. Member must address himself, and I am sure he will, to the Amendments.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order. A series of slanderous statements has been made about Northern Ireland, under the umbrella of dealing with the Special Powers Act. May I take it, Sir Robert, that hon. Members on this side of the Committee who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will be allowed to reply to these statements and to put the facts on record?

The Chairman: We will meet that situation when it arises.

Mr. McNamara: I am not saying anything in this Committee which I have not said outside far more strongly.
It has been said that we are taking away the legislature of a representative Parliament. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) said that we should weep when we take away representative government, but the representative government of Ireland was not what was established after the troubles, in the Six Counties. It was the democratic wish of the peoples of the whole of Ireland to have home rule and an independent Parliament. While people may choose arbitrarily a particular date to justify a particular situation—I am not advocating the point that I want to see a united Ireland, which I do—it cannot be claimed that Stormont has ever been a representative Parliament when one- third of the population felt that they were robbed of their birthright—

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to make that sort of speech. It is not in order. He must address himself strictly to the Amendments.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Sir Robert, it has been said to me continually that here we have a repre-

sentative Parliament democratically elected. The argument I am advancing is that I do not agree that Stormont was a democratically elected Parliament, because a person could choose his own line of representation and then claim it to be representative. Even if the powers which are to be given to the Secretary of State designate are arbitrary and Draconian, which they are, I consider that to be far better than the situation which existed when he was forced to take these powers. That is the logic of my argument.

Mr. Maginnis: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it was not the fault of Stormont that one party was in power for 50 years but the fault of the legislation passed by the House of Commons under the Government of the then Mr. Attlee, who wrote into the Ireland Act, 1949, a guarantee which meant that the people of Northern Ireland always supported the Parliament which gave them a guarantee that they would stay in the United Kingdom?

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, it was the fault of hon. Members of the House of Commons—Castle, Galloper Smith, Bonar Law. The people of Northern Ireland said that they were prepared to support armed uprising in the north of Ireland to try to keep the whole of Ireland within the Union. Then eventually as a second best they had forced on them a Stormont Government. Suddenly they have taken it and clutched it to their bosoms as a way of repressing people.
I am not concerned about the powers that come here. There will not be just the Ulster Unionists, a few Nationalists and a few of my hon. Friends and the S.D.L.P., but over 600 Members of Parliament will be keeping an eye on what is happening in Northern Ireland. They are likely to be more representative and to be able to ask questions about what is going on and to examine the situation. They are more likely to apply the things which we hold dear in this country: freedom under the law; equality before the law; no arbitrary arrest or imprisonment; freedom of political expression; freedom of publication; freedom to express ideas. They will be able to see that these matters are put intooperation—matters which have been denied under the provisions, of the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Winterton: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the representation of Northern Ireland in this Parliament should be substantially increased so that people who know something about Northern Ireland should be here to argue their case?

Mr. McNamara: That is a very interesting argument. My argument is that the best people to decide what is to happen to Ireland are the Irish people themselves—[Interruption.] But the Ulster Members represent only the Six Counties, not 32.

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman in his heart knows that this just will not do. Either he should finish his remarks quickly, or throughout his speech he should assist me by saying to which Amendment he is addressing himself. There are a number of them and I should like to know to which he is referring.

Mr. McNamara: I apologise, Sir Robert. I now turn to new Clause 1. Today I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State designate for Northern Ireland. In fact, I wrote the letter at 3.30 this afternoon, and this is the reason I arrived late for the Committee stage of this Bill. The letter concerns a man called John Daly.
This afternoon I had a telephone call from Mrs. Edwina Stewart, the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association—[An Hon. Member: "Is she not a Communist?"] I could not care less whether she is a Communist, a Catholic or an Ulster Unionist. She happens to be a source of information which is very good indeed, and her facts generally are objective. She is concerned about the situation of people in Northern Ireland. Certainly her policy for Northern Ireland is not one I would adopt.
This is what I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman:
I have just received a telephone call from the Secretary of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association concerning Mr. John Daly. She informs me that Mr. Daly was injured on 9th March in Clonard, when the four boys were blown up, that he was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital and then into military custody at Musgrove Park. I am informed that he is still suffering from injuries to his ear and face, suffering from deafness and lack of balance as result of the explosion"—

we all know that it was an I.R.A. explosion—
but nevertheless has been taken to police barracks interrogation centre where his solicitor"—
this is where the matter is of importance—
Mr. Desmond Marrinan has been unable to obtain access to him, nor has he received any information concerning him. There are many witnesses to the fact that Mr. Daly was not involved in any way with the particular incident, and he was in fact going to visit his father when he was injured by the explosion.
The evidence at the moment, and what people are saying, is that this man was going past this house when the explosion occurred. He was injured, taken to hospital and then was taken to the Palace Barracks to be interrogated.

[Mr. GEORGE WALLACE in the Chair]

7.45 p.m.

I shall outline the matters which should be concerning English Members of Parliament. First, there was no access by his legal representative; secondly, no information was given of the charge, if any, on which he is being held and indeed as to the grounds on which he is being held. These are two little facts. I introduce them this afternoon, not because this is a particularly terrible case in the catalogue of cases, but because this happened this afternoon. This is the point the Secretary of State designate should be bearing in mind. These are the sorts of incidents which occur under the Special Powers Act and which build up to feelings of resentment.

It may be the man is completely innocent. On the other hand, it may be he is an evil man, a supporter of the I.R.A. and perhaps of some of its most vicious actions. I do not know the answer to these questions. However, if he were in England we would know why he had been arrested and would have the possibility of seeing any evidence which had been adduced and would have a legal right to see him.

I was asked to keep you informed, Mr. Wallace, of the Amendments to which I was referring, and I am relating this matter to new Clause 1. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will individually examine every case of every internee to see whether he is being correctly held. I put it to him that there are roughly 900 internees. If he spends


15 minutes on each case—not much when a man's liberty is at stake—it will take him 225 hours and, assuming he does an eight-hour day, this means that 28 days will be spent on this task.

What criteria will the right hon. Gentleman adopt? How will he operate under the Special Powers Act, if the Committee allows him to do so? We have heard from Press leaks—whether they come from Downing Street or Stormont, I do not know—that there are some 450 internees who can be let out immediately because there may be nothing on them or because they are not a security risk. If this is so, why on earth are they being kept in custody, and why have we not seen the evidence?

It is important that these matters should be realised. In the euphoria which has flowed from the Government's initiative, we must not slacken our vigilance in the matter of internment and the Special Powers Act, or we shall dissipate the goodwill which has been created.

I mentioned this to the Prime Minister when he made his statement and I pointed out that these would be the two key issues. At the end of the day people will be left without fathers, mothers, brothers, sons and cousins and there will of course be resentment. Therefore, it is of tremendous importance that these matters should be dealt with.

We must get rid of the Special Powers Act. The Attorney-General yesterday said that something would be done about the situation, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say what is to be done. Will he publish a White Paper and, if and when one is published, will we have the opportunity to see it? Does he intend to get rid of the Special Powers Act, or will he do as the Hunt Committee told him to do? Does he intend to say that the situation in regard to control of explosives will be dealt with but that all the rest will go?

For the period of a year during which Stormont is dissolved, we shall give Northern Ireland what it has not had for 50 years, a taste of the rule of law—not the rule of law as it has been operated by Stormont, but as we have come to expect in this country, with every person able to express equality of opinion.

Mr. Molyneaux: We have heard a great deal about the Special Powers Act. I should like to correct some of the things which were said a little earlier in our discussions. It is rubbish to say that this Act has operated against Roman Catholics and has never been applied against Protestants. It is not so long since a large number of the members of a Protestant organisation were prosecuted under the Special Powers Act and were sentenced to imprisonment or heavily fined. This is in marked contrast to other recent cases where members of the minority, including two hon. Members of the House of Commons were given suspended sentences and fined very much more lightly.

Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman is obviously referring to me. However, he is misleading the Committee. I happen to have been given a suspended sentence, but it was under the Public Order Act or one of its Amendments. The complaint here is not against Acts under which prosecutions have been brought but against Acts under which no prosecutions have been brought. The hon. Gentleman is misleading us, further, when he says that large numbers of a certain Protestant organisation have been prosecuted and imprisoned under the Special Powers Act. That is not the case. They, too, were dealt with under the Public Order Act.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am sorry to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but the prosecutions were under the Special Powers Act. It was felt that the accused would not be dealt with severely enough if they were charged under the Public Order Act.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the processions banned in Northern Ireland were banned not under the Public Order Act but under the Special Powers Act and that those who violated the ban were prosecuted as a consequence under the Special Powers Act? Some people on the Protestant side have been in prison. Let us be absolutely fair. Let us also be fair and say that there are Protestants who have been put away without trial under this Act as well.

Mr. Molyneaux: I can confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. What is more, if I may take up a point made by the


hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), it is far from a very insignificant number. In one case, the ban imposed under one of the Special Powers regulations involved no fewer than 123,000 members of Loyalist organisations, which is by no means an insignificant number.
Despite the powers that we are conferring upon the Secretary of State designate, my prediction is that we shall continue to have complaints in the House, just as we have had in the past and just as we have had today, simply because many of the grievances were imaginary to begin with. I call in evidence the words of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on another occasion when he said that the reforms which had been introduced and implemented had made not a scrap of difference to the man in the street in his constituency or to anyone else in Belfast. He asked what possible benefit it was to the man in the street to have "one man, one vote" in local government. In fact, we have that system in Northern Ireland for elections to the House of Commons. We have it with minor variations for elections to the Stormont Parliament. For local government elections we have a rather different system. It is the same as that which operated in this enlightened island until 1948, when it was changed by a Socialist Government. I make no complaint about that. But it was not discrimination against Roman Catholics. At worst, it was discrimination against people who did not pay rates. But that applied whether they were Protestant or Catholic.
I turn to a more serious matter and one which is possibly more relevant. I wish to register my objection to the powers that we are giving to the Secretary of State designate. I do so not because I have fears about his integrity, his ability or his fair-mindedness. I object to these powers being conferred on any Minister, in the House of Commons or elsewhere. I object even more to the powers being conferred on other Ministers in the House. The words which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) seeks to delete appear to confer on other Ministers in the House certain powers which were exercised formerly by the Stormont Government.
The propaganda which has convinced people about the so-called faults in the

Stormont Administration which resulted, for example, in only 82 per cent. of the new houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clarke) being allocated to Roman Catholics, has obscured the fact that much of Northern Ireland's legislation dealing especially with social matters, has been years in advance of anything that we have in Great Britain. For example, the Northern Ireland Mental Health Act, 1948, has not yet been overtaken after 24 years by legislation in the House. It is a direct consequence of the chaotic division of authority and responsibility in Great Britain which has resulted in so many of the scandals which have saddened all of us in the House.
I have in mind especially the different attitudes and procedures which have been adopted in social legislation in Northern Ireland. If some of these aspects suddenly should come under the influence of a British Secretary of State, I have my fears. We could find that in a great many Health Service matters in Northern Ireland we were throwing the machine into reverse gear. For example, we have a scheme for the training of teachers of handicapped children which is the responsibility of the unified Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority. This has created a great deal of unity and continuity throughout the service which looks after handicapped children. In this enlightened island that responsibility is divided between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science, with a great deal of unnecessary confusion, and we want to avoid this sort of fragmentation in Northern Ireland.
There is a broadly similar situation with regard to agricultural education in Northern Ireland. Until now, it has been operated and organised by the people most fitted to deal with it, namely, the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture. Over here, again we have fragmentation. I understand that agricultural colleges are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Clearly there will be a great deal of genuine resentment in Northern Ireland if those involved in these spheres are forced to take what they will regard as retrograde steps. I emphasise that a great many of these devoted public servants are not involved in politics in any shape or


form, and it is essential that we do not alienate them from the system. We should not create additional resentment to that being felt about this Measure among other sections of the population of Northern Ireland.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: My subject will be new Clause 1, which deals with the necessity for special powers. However, perhaps I might be permitted to divert for one moment in order to express my sincere personal good wishes to the Secretary of State designate, since this is the first opportunity that I have had. They are very profound, although the right hon. Gentleman is going to a task which I judge to be almost hopeless.
What we are concerned with here is a revolutionary group. We are concerned with violence. We are concerned with a group very much like the Irgun Svei Leumi that we experienced in Palestine. It is a group dedicated, first, to expelling Britain from Ireland and, secondly, to upsetting the Government of Ireland and establishing a revolutionary régime. That is not a group which will be appeased.
We must recognise that whatever may be said of this move as a political solution it will not improve the security situation, for this is a security situation. On the one hand, we are depriving the Army of the support of an established Government and of the good will and, indeed, the trust of a majority group in that country. On the other hand, we are conferring on the I.R.A. a signal victory. Let us not kid ourselves. We are here now because of the success of the violence of the I.R.A. But for those actions, rightly or wrongly—possibly wrongly—Stormont would still be functioning.
It is the snipers, the bombers, and the dynamiters who have destroyed Stormont. We must recognise that we are embroidering on the banner of the I.R.A. the battle honours of Stormont. That gives it an expansion of prestige which will not make it easier to control. We are giving the I.R.A. the expectation at least of receiving reinforcements from Long Kesh. The I.R.A. is in exclusive control of a fief in Derry.
People who are encouraged by the statement of the Provisionals in Derry that they will suspend part of their operations for some weeks are certainly not

students of the thoughts of Chairman Mao. Almost certainly the I.R.A. are students of the thoughts of Chairman Mao. I should like to make one quotation—it is not an exact quotation—from those thoughts, which goes like this:
When the forces of Imperialism and reaction seek conciliation or offer a truce, the opportunity should be taken to organise a greater leap forward.
I believe that this is the situation with this unappeased force.
Without special powers, what are we going to do about the Bogside? This is an area from which the police and the military are excluded, and in which the I.R.A. runs its own courts and inflicts its own punishments. It will not be persuaded to leave.
I should like to quote one passage from a remarkable speech, which people should read, delivered by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut-Col. Colin Mitchell) in the debate on the Army Estimates on 16th March, in which he said:
Once an area in under terrorist control, moderate opinion is silent because it is dead. Force is the only arbiter and political exhortations from outside the terrorist-controlled areas, whether they come from Westminster, Stormont, or anywhere else, will never work unless they are backed by a strong, permanent police military presence inside that area."—[OFFICIAL Report, 16th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 823.]
What is to be done? Are we to leave Derry as a sort of assassins' castle from which the I.R.A. can sally forth at the date and time of its choosing? Or are we to go in and move it out? Are we to do it without special powers? To move it out the battle of Derry will make what has been referred to as "Bloody Sunday" look like a picnic.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I do not know from where the hon. and learned Gentleman got his earlier quotation, but he might be interested to know that that is exactly the policy which the last Prime Minister but one in Northern Ireland wished to pursue and over which he fell in March, 1971.

Mr. Paget: Whether that be so, it is not particularly relevant to my speech. This is the situation with which the Secretary of State designate has to deal. It seems somewhat naïve to think that he should go into that kind of situation having been deprived of the special powers of his


predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman will need far greater powers.
Over and above the Derry position, the right hon. Gentleman will have to deal with terrorism generally throughout and perhaps beyond the Province. As far as I know—this is a lesson from history—political settlements do not work until rebellion has been either crushed or surrendered to. There can be a political settlement which hands over power to the rebels, there can be a political settlement which destroys the rebels; but there cannot be a political settlement which leaves the rebels exercising violence. When we have tried that, it has always failed.
In Malaysia, with all the necessary powers, we first smashed the rebellion and then established a Government. In Cyprus we did the reverse, and there we have a bottled up civil war which everyone knows will break out some time and that large forces will be engaged in trying to keep it down.
Another fundamental lesson is that no guerrilla movement has ever been controlled and beaten by an Army that did not have martial law to operate. Martial law involves power to interrogate. Also involved within the laws of war are hostages and reprisals. We cannot do without them. No Army faced with a guerrilla situation has been able to do without those powers. This is the same situation with which we are faced.
When I said that recently, somebody—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)—asked about France. He said, "Did not the Resistance movement in France grow when the Nazis used these methods?" He and I received a letter from somebody who had been a high officer very much concerned with the guerrilla movement in Norway and the Resistance in France. He said: "I do not know what guerrillas you have been in company with. I can assure you that if the Germans had not used reprisal, if they had not used interrogation, we would not have needed an invasion of Europe; we would have taken over the place. If, indeed, the Germans had been working on the rules applied to your Army in Ulster, we would have had no difficulty at all. All Europe would have been in our hands." In fact, the German Army was in France for four years and

its soldiers were able to go about unarmed in almost every town.
That was because of the threat in the background. We cannot just kid ourselves that when violence is resorted to we can carry on without that. The worst of all examples was that of Israel. There we were faced with an Arab rebellion. We tried to come to a political settlement with that, and it forced a Jewish rebellion. Eventually we simply fled. That seems a horribly close parallel to the situation that we are going into now.
We have enlarged the prestige and power of the I.R.A., deprived ourselves of the support of an established Government and antagonised the Protestant community. We are inhibiting ourselves by tighter rules than applied in the past even to this Army, and they are tighter than were ever applied to an Army before. In the circumstances, what do we do? Having imposed impotence on our forces I believe a civil war will become inevitable. Maybe the next incursion we have from the Liberals will be a demand to ask the United Nations to come and put confusion on chaos, for this seems to be the final abdication.
I find this a deeply sadly depressing moment. I was unable to support the Bill yesterday. Of course powers are needed, the strongest powers are needed, but the settlement, I believe, will prove disastrous.

Mr. John Stokes: We have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) a characteristically forthright speech setting out in the clearest possible terms the realities of life and death in Northern Ireland today. I was present for the whole of yesterday's debate and have been present much of today. In dealing with the Special Powers Act earlier we were discussing fundamental liberties of the subject. That is something which in the House of Commons is always of interest and usually is discussed well. In this situation, in the end, human life is more important than political liberty. In Northern Ireland in recent months life has been more at stake than liberty.
I recognise fully the sincerity and the passion with which hon. Members of the Opposition have spoken about our liberties. I share their views. The problem we have to face today in considering these


Amendments is whether we could afford to allow the situation in Ireland to return to a sort of 19th century Gladstonian Liberalism while these appalling acts are taking place. I believe hon. Members opposite, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, have been living in cloud cuckooland. There is war in Northern Ireland against urban guerrillas, ruthless and bestial war, worse I am told that some of the appalling sights and scenes which some of us witnessed in the Second World War. For instance, men there are killed in front of their families which is something that even the Gestapo did not do in the last war.
8.15 p.m.
In these terrible circumstances any civilised Government must have strong additional powers. We shall do no service to anyone if we pretend that violence does not exist. Some of us believe that we are not even winning this war against the terrorists in Northern Ireland. There is a real risk that that war may come over to these shores as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) rightly pointed out. I believe it quite futile to talk of legal quibbles and niceties and normal legal processes when we all know that no witnesses dare appear for fear of death or terrible injury. Of course we all want a settlement, but I do not believe that we shall get one by pretending that the gunmen do not exist, or by giving way to them.
I speak now as an English Member representing a constituency in the heart of England. I hope that an Englishman can still speak in this Chamber and raise the voice of England. I believe that the supreme interest of England, and indeed of the rest of the United Kingdom, is that the guerrilla war against the terrorists in Northern Ireland should bewon and that everything possible should be done to prevent that war coming over here to our large cities. I, and those who like me abstained last night, would vastly have preferred a military initiative followed by a political one, and not the other way round. The present drastic and ruthless action against the Stormont Government would have been far more palatable had that been in the package.
We also wanted to see not only a continuation of special powers in Northern Ireland and all that goes with them, but some sign of a stronger will here in the Home Office and in the Government and with the new Secretary of State to bring pressure to bear on Mr. Lynch and the Republic to control the movement of terrorists and the flow of gelignite. I am thinking, as of course we must in this context, that at some stage probably the most difficult military decision which my right hon. Friend will have to take will be to go again into I.R.A. enclaves and bring in the police force and then get the military out. This may well mean declaring martial law and the curfew and more elaborate controls at the Border. That may well mean bringing more troops from Germany. Those measures would be heartily supported by the great majority of people in England who are loyal to the Crown. I believe that they would receive overwhelming support.
The present calm—we have been talking here until recently in a calm enough atmosphere—I fear will last only for a few weeks. I believe it sheer folly to believe that by our expressing lofty liberal policies the I.R.A. will throw away their guns. It is a military organisation, nothing less, and it will use this time to reform, re-equip and return to the fray all the stronger for this period of rest. We have heard that the Government have here a reserve of 4,000 troops. Let them be sent over immediately and put on the Border. Unless we control that Border, however expensive it may be, we shall never get peace in Northern Ireland.
We have heard much about those who are interned. Obviously internment is a grave and distasteful business. We all hate it, but in this supreme emergency what could any civilised Government have done? Surely the very greatest care and concern must be exercised to see that no murderers, bombers, assassins and others are let out, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, to reinforce the ranks of the terrorists.
The Bill, which I could not support, although I support the special powers, when enacted will be only temporary, though I cannot see the possibility of Stormont being restored. The clamour against it when the time comes, from all


the left-wing populists, would be too great. The only answer may be to integrate Northern Ireland into this country.
Many people in this country, and indeed many of my constituents, believe that the I.R.A. has won a big victory in the presentation of the Bill. For Heaven's sake, let us not make that victory even greater by accepting the new Clause about the special powers.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: As I shall be brief, I hope that the hon. Member for Oldsbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I content myself with the single observation about his speech that I cannot believe that his contribution to our debate, any more than that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), can help the Secretary of State designate in his work; nor can it assist in the restoration of peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland which I take it the hon. Gentleman wishes to come about just as ardently as any other hon. Member. I do not mistake the hon. Gentleman's motive. I just fault his analysis.

Mr. Stokes: The entire burden of my speech was to restore peace and order in what is and should be a Christian land.

Mr. Duffy: I understand that Mr. Aneurin Bevan, who was responsible for many unforgettable utterances, once reminded us that nowhere could greater peace and quietude be found than in a cemetery. I cannot believe that in pursuance of those policies we would not eventually be driven to such paths as would leave us with a desolation that would eventually become unacceptable, not only to the House of Commons, but to the people.
I support the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and I want to speak about new Clause No. 1. I want to talk about the application of the Special Powers Act, because the technicalities of the Act have been well aired by my hon. and learned Friends as well as by hon. Members opposite who are well qualified to do this.
I want to talk about the application of the Act in a way which has not been so far raised in the debate. I want to

remind the Committee of the brutalising effect the Act has had on the police in Northern Ireland. I also want to ask what effect the Act is having upon our Army. I even want to ask what effect the Act is having upon institutions in this country, notably the law. I also want to ask what effect the Act is having upon our good name abroad and also upon the Prime Minister's chances as he seeks to take Britain into Europe, because of the way in which the Act must call into question our credentials.
Finally, I want even to ask hon. Members opposite who are members of the Ulster Unionist Group within the Conservative Party what effect the Act might yet have upon them.
Even though I was most impressed by the manner in which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North propounded the Clause, he conveyed only a hint of the enormity of the conduct and the violation of human dignity which are involved when, as a result of a midnight search and seizure of civilians in their beds, in former years by armed police and more recently by armed troops, the whole majesty of the law suffers; because eventually not only the people who are so seized but their families and their friends come to question the application of the law, the basis of that law, and then the system of which it is the legal expression. They question also those who are carrying out the law.
In years gone by it was the police. I speak here with the greatest possible respect for the Northern Ireland police. No one who has any experience of Northern Ireland can be in any doubt that they are distinguished from the police in England or in Scotland or in Wales—

Mr. Molyneaux: In that they are being shot at.

Mr. Duffy: And, I dare say, the police in many other parts of the world. No one who had wartime experience of Northern Ireland can be in any doubt of this, especially if such a person has served in any other country abroad.
No hon. Member who served as officer of the day or as duty officer of a ship of the Royal Navy which had occasion during the course of the last war to put in to either Belfast or Derry and who had experience of other ports in this country as well as abroad could possibly mistake the difference, not only in temper on the


part of the police of Belfast and Derry, but also their conduct. If hon. Members think that this is an unnecessary distinction, I can only invite them to consult the wartime logs of naval ships. I assure them that any duty officer or officer of the day would have been lacking in his duty if, among the other advice that he gave ratings going on shore leave, he did not give the very important advice that they should not in any circumstances argue with the police ashore.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman accused my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) of being unhelpful in his remarks. Does the hon. Gentleman think that this attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary is helpful, particularly when his denigration and sneers are not based on information derived in recent years but are based on information derived many years ago?

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman has not heard me out, neither has he read the Hunt Report, otherwise he would not have made one remark that he just made. The fact that I am drawing upon events of many years ago does not alter in any way the relevance of that experience to our debate and what I am now about to say.
Far from my having denigrated the police of Northern Ireland, I thought that I was at pains to say earlier that I would refer to them with the greatest possible respect. When the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) offered a possible explanation of the conduct of the police in Northern Ireland, I was ready to agree. I understand why they behave like this, and I do not believe that policemen anywhere in the world could have behaved differently in those conditions. Cannot the hon. Gentleman see that the behaviour of the police is an inevitable expression of the conditions that have been brought about? It is their inevitable reaction to these conditions, for which they are not responsible, which causes them to behave in this way.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If the hon. Gentleman would leave the police alone I do not think he need worry about what he is saying in this Committee. Two things are certain. One is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary have learned that there is in the House of Commons a tremendous respect for what is one of

the finest police forces in the world. By his utterances the hon. Gentleman shows that he knows very little of what he is talking about.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman could not have made that last observation if he had had any knowledge of my experience in and my visits to Northern Ireland, or my long period of domicile there. Neither could he have made the first observation if he had been aware not only of my understanding of why the police in Northern Ireland behave in this way but also of my respect for them in these vary difficult circumstances.
Why are they unacceptable in many parts of Northern Ireland? Why can only the Army attempt to fulfil a policing rôle? We know that the Army cannot go on fulfilling this rôle. We know that there are "no go" areas in Northern Ireland, and I take it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are just as anxious as hon. Members on this side of the Committee to see those "no go" areas restored to law. I want to see the police in those areas policing them. I put it to the Committee that the police cannot do so until they become acceptable, and they will not become acceptable while they are handmaidens of the Special Powers Act. That is my first point, and I do not see how any hon. Member of this Committee can possibly argue with that.
Of course, hatred of the police is a characteristic of any police State, indeed of any totalitarian régime. That would be widely acknowledged by hon. Members of this Committee and the Presss if it concerned any other country but their own.
I must say that I read rather ruefully a remark attributed to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) a few weeks ago, suggesting that if Judith Todd had been interned at Long Kesh some of my hon. Friends would have been camping outside. I am afraid that is true. But it is not only some of my hon. Friends who have shown less concern for some of the effects of the Special Powers Act than one might have expected, given their record and their concern about such conduct, or misconduct, in other parts of the world.
What of the supine attitude of the official and unofficial organs of the legal profession? What of the Bar Council,


the Law Society, the Society of Conservative Lawyers, the Society of Labour Lawyers? What, even, of the Haldane Society? All these have decided views on all aspects of the law, including constitutional and administrative law. Why, then, have they not challenged more vigorously the greatest threat to our liberties mounted in our time by Governments of this country?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: rose—

Mr. Duffy: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have given way twice and I really must not take up too much of the time of the Committee. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but I feel sure he will have a chance to speak later.
I come now to my third point. We have heard much from the Government in the past year about our being a part of European civilisation. Our dictatorship in Northern Ireland suggests that, whatever other aspects of European civilisation we are a part of, we are slowly becoming the heirs of that aspect of European civilisation to which we should be most sensitive—the Third Reich.
I was interested earlier in the debate to hear the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) raise the matter of the wartime 18B Regulation, and ask my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) if he accepted the need for that in wartime. I will tell him now that, for my part, I did not then, and I cannot see how any hon. Member of this Committee could now, in view of what we now know about its application then, about the doubts of some hon. Members and about some of its results, as well as about the application of a similar regulation in the United States.
I do not know how much hon. Gentlemen opposite know, for example, about how members of United States society, especially in the western districts, in California, were not merely interned but lost their property and were not compensated. This is regarded as one of the most shameful matters—perhaps the most shameful—in the domestic affairs of the United States, and I say unhesitatingly that the House needs to be reminded periodically of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North

(Mr. McNamara) said in an intervention earlier when this matter was raised. We need to be reminded occasionally of Lord Atkin's famous dissenting judgment in Liversidge v. Anderson delivered on 3rd November, 1941, which contained these words:
In England amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent. They may be changed but they speak the same language in war as in peace…I protest, even if I do it alone, against the strained construction put upon words with the effect of giving an uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister.
I think the hon. Member will understand why I have no hesitation in declaring myself against such a regulation as 18B in wartime and against the continued application of the Special Powers Act now.
I come now to the effect of this on the Army. Can anyone take any other view but that the Army has been cast in a rôle that is militarily unsound as well as politically unwise because of the way it has been made an instrument of policies which we have reason to believe—certainly this was the case last July and August—it did not believe in? The Army has been made an instrument of the Special Powers Act, which we know has been viciously one-sided in its application. This was not accepted by some hon. Members earlier in the debate but John Graham writing in the Financial Times of 9th February this year said:
As far as I know there is only one non-Catholic among this number.
He was referring to the number who were then interned—only one non-Catholic out of about a hundred internees. The Army is not even an efficient instrument and this is demonstrated by the tremendous turnover of men who have been detained in recent months. Do hon. Members on the Government side realise that if the special powers are used persistently they cannot be confined to terrorising Catholic homes in search-and-snatch operations? They must in future be employed logically to pursue the gun holders on the other side. They must be used to check on Mr. Craig's men who have declared their aim to be the liquidation of the enemy. I do not want that, but do hon. Members opposite want it?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I rise to oppose new Clause 1 but in saying


that I would add that I wish the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had not drawn his amending Clause in such a way as to suggest that the whole of the special regulations should be done away with at this juncture, because I believe there is room for amendment of the regulations.
First, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). I am not a Northern Irishman, but I had the privilege to serve in a Northern Irish regiment and to work in Northern Ireland. My experience of the R.U.C. is the same as my experience with the police in this country. They are able-bodied servants of the people, who serve their society well and who have been maligned out of all recognition in the House by far too many hon. Members who have never seen them at work.
Let me say that I dislike the concept of arbitrary powers being used against anyone. For that reason, I find some sympathy with the new Clause. But when a society is threatened with violence—when, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is in a state of war—the people who make up that society have the right to special protection. Therefore, unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe I believe that special powers are required. I would have supported Regulation 18B in the last war.
Any of us who have been to Northern Ireland recently—and anyone who has connections such as I have, and who has worked there, as I did, when Northern Ireland was a peaceful country, when no special powers were in action—will know that that society can be as our society is in the rest of the United Kingdom. The violence that is there now has not always been there. We stand here so often and castigate the Government at Stormont and the Northern Irish M.P.s for what we imagine to be the appalling conditions in Northern Ireland, but until 1968 very few people in the House of Commons ever found much time to concern themselves with the problems of Northern Ireland. So if there be faults there, those faults lie on all our shoulders for having ignored that society for far too long.
The Northern Ireland unemployment figures since the war have always been very much higher than they have been

here. As one who worked in the aircraft industry there, I can tell the Committee that many delegations came to Westminster and asked for much help, but seldom was the help found for them. Northern Ireland was a peaceful province, and its problems were a bore to most of us in the House of Commons.
But suddenly, in 1968, something happened. Maybe the civil rights marchers were right. Perhaps, unfortunately, they were misunderstood. Whatever may be the case, as we know, the sniper and the bomber took over from them. In those circumstances, with innocent men, women and children being gunned down, could we rely simply on the ordinary legal processes to protect them? They did not think that we could. Hunt dared to suggest that we might. What has happened? We disarmed the police, only to rearm them some years later, after the terrorist had got a grip on the community which so far we had not succeeded in prising him from
I cannot support the Bill, but, even if I could, I could not support the new Clause because every bit of sympathy I have goes to my right hon. Friend who is to take over as Secretary of State. I admire his abilities enormously. He has every good wish I can give him. I appreciate enormously the fact that he has stayed in the Committee virtually from the start, because he is hearing many things which he may find very boring. The fact that he went to Northern Ireland as quickly as he did, and the way that he is doing his utmost to master this most (intractable of problems, deserves and gets both my gratitude and heartfelt admiration.
However, were I to support the new Clause I would know that I was supporting a Clause that robbed my right hon. Friend of the one thing that he has got to do for himself, more than any Westminster politician has ever had to do. He has got to rebuild the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland—and I speak about all the people of Northern Ireland. He has to build their confidence in himself and in his colleagues, as being fair-minded administrators who care about the suffering of that province, who seek peace—as I know they do—and who intend to see that the terrorists shall not succeed, and that society and decent ordinary people, regardless of their reli-


gious persuasion—and I sometimes think that that is the biggest red herring that we have allowed to creep into our recent deliberations—may be able to live the sort of life that we live in this country and never give a second thought to.
8.45 p.m.
I believe, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will need the Special Powers Act for some time to come. As I have said, totally to demolish that Act at this moment—when my right hon. Friend has to persuade 1½ million people in Northern Ireland that he is concerned with their safety—would be an act of absolute madness.
Sometimes when one hears hon. Members speak about the people of Northern Ireland one imagines that bigotry is on one side and fairmindedness on the other. It is not so. They are ordinary people, with all the faults which make up each one of us. But the fact is that once internment was introduced—as the Belfast Telegraph said at the time—a wedge was driven between the two communities which did nothing to improve community relations, although conceivably—no more than that—it took off the streets some of those who otherwise would have been involved in the violence that has plagued that society.
Yet it is also fair to say that internment in the arbitrary way it can be introduced—I am thinking of Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the Act—allows one man to make the order of detention and one man to make the order of internment without any need to consult anybody else and thus to test his judgment. As I understand it, the detention order is made on the advice of the Chief Constable and was, before Stormont was prorogued, recommended to the Home Affairs Minister, who, in fact, was also the Prime Minister. The Chief Constable, I gather, made his recommendation on intelligence provided by the Army and the police. Thus, it was the Chief Constable who advised the Home Affairs Minister, who in turn signed the detention order if he was satisfied with the case the Chief Constable had made out.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that something ought to be inserted between the Chief Constable and himself because, presumably, if he intends to maintain the power of internment—and I do not see

how he can do away with it at this moment—he will find himself in exactly the same position as was the Home Affairs Minister in Northern Ireland. Thus he will be exercising the same arbitrary powers of detention and internment unless he allows himself the benefit of a number of advisers to tell him whether they think the Chief Constable's suggestion is sufficiently strong.
Then again, when one has interned a man, can one really hold him without charge in a part of the United Kingdom sine die? If we want to see the judicial processes of the United Kingdom restored to all parts of the United Kingdom, is there not a need to change the process of internment? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last Friday that a procedure to review the case of each internee will be introduced. I welcome that statement. I am sure that it is right. But are we ending the policy of internment with the appointment of the Secretary of State, or are we merely changing the overall procedure of that policy? This has not been made clear, and I would be grateful if we could have some clarification.
I do not see how we can do away with the Special Powers Act. Let us be fair to Mr. Faulkner; he has accepted the need for a change in the internment procedure. This is one of the two proposals that he accepted. What has to be done is to bring internment much more closely into line with other United Kingdom procedures, and I suggest that at a certain moment of time after internment the internee must either be charged with an offence or released. If he is charged he must be put on trial. The argument has always been that we cannot do that—that witnesses will be intimidated. I wonder whether that is really the case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the city of Belfast in the last few days I.R.A. men have been brought before the courts, been tried and found guilty by a jury and put away for terms of up to ten years? Would he not agree that that is the right way, if possible, of dealing with the vast majority of these terrorists?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Member, because he has made my point. When I was last in Belfast, just over a fortnight ago, I asked that


question when I was at Stormont. I will read from a letter sent to me soon after my visit. It says:
During the past two-and-a-half years there have been 36 known cases of court witnesses having been intimidated—
I dare say that we would find the same amount in the courts in England—
most of them in those parts of Belfast where the I.R.A. have their bases. Over the same period there have been 80 known cases of reprisals against members of the public, for giving information or for associating with H.M. Forces or for other reasons.
I do not consider that those figures make out a case for preventing the possibility of some form of special court if need be, but certainly they make out a case for a judicial procedure to deal with those held in internment.

Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. Friend not realise that the situation has deteriorated a great deal since he obtained those figures? Is he aware that in the last three or four weeks one Crown witness in my constituency—Sidney Agnew—was shot dead in front of his wife and children to stop him giving evidence against boys who had hi-jacked a bus?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I would like to agree with my hon. Friend, because I agree with him on so many points, but my letter is dated 14th March, 1972.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Member aware that the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) concerned a member of my congregation so I know (he facts? Is he aware that this man asked for police protection and was refused it and that the police came at a quarter to nine and told him he would attend court the next day and at nine o'clock he was shot? Is he aware of the strong representations which have been made and the deep resentment felt throughout the whole of Belfast over the fact that this man was not given police protection?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That raises another point upon which I wish to touch in a minute. I believe that the policy of internment can be changed in a way which will make any fair-minded person in the community of Northern Ireland feel that the community is much more

within the normal judicial procedures, ft is possible to read the Special Powers Act, Section by Section and to say, "Goodness, how frightful to think that they can do that". Many of the laws of our country, if only we knew them, would probably frighten us considerably. Until we have a debate like this we do not know what is within those laws. Unless every one of those laws is implemented they will not disturb the freedom of the ordinary citizen.
I had the opportunity of meeting some senior officers of the Ulster Constabulary and some of its inspectors a fortnight ago. They were optimistic. Sure, they do not know what to do about the bombing. How does one know in which car boot there is a bomb? How does one know which young girl is carrying a bomb in her shopping bag? If this were to happen in London we should be just as hard pressed to know what the solution should be as they are. But there was optimism, and yet we are talking of this crisis as of such dimensions that we must take these drastic powers and get rid of Stormont.
The Ulster Constabulary asked me a question to which I did not know the answer, and I put it to my right hon. Friend. Why is it that in those areas of Belfast where the I.R.A. have been winkled out the Army will not return civil authority to the police, where it belongs? Peace in Northern Ireland means that the community is governed by the normal authority which we expect in England, Wales and Scotland, and through the normal processes of the law courts and the police force. If we are unwilling to hand back authority to the Ulster police we are in some respects guilty of maintaining a crisis situation where none need exist.
I am not going to close these remarks by suggesting that Northern Ireland is on the brink of peace; it is not. It would, however, be equally wrong if I told my hon. Friends that in my experience—which consists of military service as well as of working there—Northern Ireland is tottering over into chaos and disaster. I do not say that. But from now on each one of us must weigh his words very carefully, because now more than ever everything we say has a direct bearing on the lives and the future of 1½ million people.

Mr. Will Griffiths: There are certainly two things in the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) with which I agree. First, I share his apprehension about the consequences of internment, although, as I shall show later, I differ in my conclusions as to how to deal with that situation. The second thing in respect of which I go along with him is—and here I endorse what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—the expression of good wishes to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President. As other hon. Members have done, I appreciate the way in which he has listened to the debate. We are all aware of the enormity of the task that faces him, and we wish him well.
Nobody who, like me, was born in a working-class area of the City of Manchester could grow up without knowing something about the Irish situation. When I was young I thought that the world was peopled 50 per cent. by Roman Catholics and 50 per cent. by others. Only later did I find that there was not quite that balance in the community. At a very early age I grew to detest the operations of the Special Powers Act, and it is on that matter that I want to speak tonight. Therefore, I support new Clause 1.
The other thing that I want to say right away concerns the actions of Westminster in relation to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East complained of Westminster's inattention to the affairs of Northern Ireland. That is not my fault, and it is not the fault of many of my hon. Friends who, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) reminded us, tried repeatedly in years gone by to raise the question of the operation of the Special Powers Act and other important matters affecting the welfare of the community in Northern Ireland. It is the irony of the present situation that now, as a by-product of terrorism, the House of Commons is repeatedly debating Northern Ireland. For years we were denied the opportunity of debating it in this House.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

9.0 p.m.

Having seen one wave after another of Ulster Unionists come to Westminster, I

utterly despise their conduct. They could have deployed themselves here in years gone by in a way that might conceivably have prevented the community explosion that we have seen. But year after year they have pretended that it was not hap-pening—saying that discrimination did not exist, seeking to show that their presence in such overwhelming numbers at Westminster was the result of a fair electoral system, and so on. I was in the House when we managed to get rid of one of them—a Rev. MacManaway—who arrived here under false pretences. But, lamentably, his successor was no better.

The Ulster Unionists have a heavy responsibility. When I hear them today talking about violence and terror I reflect on their failure over the 26 years that I have been in the House to say anything about the way in which Westminster could have taken an initiative many years ago to prevent the present explosion. I was in the House when the 1949 Act was passed, and so was the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), except that he was then a member of the Labour Party. I voted against the Labour Government in 1949 on the Ireland Act because I believed that in those years immediately after the war it was possible for Westminster to take an initiative to produce a change in the situation. My right hon. Friend the present Opposition Chief Whip was with us on that occasion. That is a story from his murky past. When we were operating in that way we had no support at all from the hon. Member for Dorset, South, and certainly none from the Ulster Unionists.

The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) rebuked one of my hon. Friends who was speaking, as I am, in favour of the new Clause. He told him, "The practices of which you complain are not unique to the North. They happen in the Republic." I agree. I do not have a great deal of time for those of my parliamentary colleagues who discriminate on the matter of freedom, who are concerned about what is happening in Vietnam or South Africa but are not concerned, for example, about what the Israelis are doing in the occupied Arab lands. These are all matters for concern. If the hon. Member for Chigwell were here now I should tell him that I


accept his argument about not being selective in our protests against the invasion of freedom, but that it would be much more convincing if he took the same attitude to Rhodesia and South Africa. We cannot carry our colleagues in a free assembly by selectivity of that kind.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I should tell him that it is no part of the case of those of us who want to see the ending of special powers that the Government should be denied powers to deal with a situation that is far from tranquil and may become even worse. What we are saying is that the Government, who are to assume the powers implicit in the Bill, should obtain the consent of the House for whatever powers they require and not rest on the discredited Special Powers Act of Stormont. That is the case of those who support new Clause 1.

What has been happening in Northern Ireland in the past two years has horrified us all. The situation has escalated and is getting apparently more and more insoluble. Those who would send the Army into the "no-go" areas should remember what happened in Deny, and the world-wide reaction to it. The Army is in an impossible position. On the whole, our troops have behaved with remarkable restraint. The solution does not lie in supporting people who commit acts of murder, but in taking this new initiative we must substantially turn our backs on what has happened in the past. One way of doing that is to reject the special powers and make a clean start, and if powers of that sort are needed Westminster must be asked for them.

Mr. Mather: For 15 years before I came to Westminster I was involved in counter-insurgency operations in the Army. Over the years I have seen these dangers getting closer. Now they are on our doorstep, and that is one reason why I entered politics. The decision on the political initiative was a crunch for me and that is why I abstained from voting last night. This policy is not a weakening of the resolution of the Government, but it may well be seen to be so by the terrorists, and this may increase their prestige and morale.
We have been learning our political lessons every day since the decision has

been taken. I will put to the Committee two military lessons. First, one talks of political initiatives, but there can be no peace settlement until the war is won. Otherwise we shall find that we have not won the war. Secondly, we cannot disengage in the face of the enemy without the gravest difficulties and consequences.
The main problem which my right hon. Friend will find is that in casting aside one's friends one may end up with not enough people on one's side. If we alienate the Protestants, and the Catholic population are dominated by the gunmen and we cannot detach them, we shall have on our side nobody at all.
I have great sympathy with the purpose of Amendment No. 10. We are faced with the gravest constitutional problems. The dilemma is that we are trying to discuss the Bill and look with great care at these constitutional issues but at the same time there is a need for speed and urgency. Tonight is not the time for constitutional engineering.
My right hon. Friend has listened to all the pleas that have been made to try to make the system more democratic. Apart from the legislation which is going through Stormont at present—the Education Bill, the Local Government Bill, the Fire Services Bill, and so on—the rest will be of an emergency nature. It is most important that this legislation should be scrutinised, otherwise it will not be effective.
Unless we push through legislationspeedily—and having abstained I feel I must support my right hon. Friend—we shall find that there is no Government left in Northern Ireland. I am sure that no hon. Member wishes to see such an eventuality. I hope that the legislation can proceed and, now that the decision is taken, we shall lose no time in putting it through.

Mr. McManus: The reason I voted—strangely, as many people might think—against the Bill last night, was from no desire on my part to maintain Stormont in any shape or form. One important reason for voting against the Bill is that it still contained provisions relating to the Special Powers Act. I could not now, or at any point in the future, vote for any measure which contained reference to the Special Powers Act or anything like it.
That is only one reason for my voting against the Bill. The atrocious and Draconian nature of the Special Powers Act is fairly well known in this Committee. Hon. Members in all parts of the Committee must now have some idea of what it is like to live in the shadow of such an Act. They must have some idea of the sort of power it gives to one person.
It is therefore strange to hear hon. Members opposite arguing that it would be wrong to give such powers to the incoming Secretary of State. I am not in the least in favour of government by decree, but it is strange to hear hon. Members opposite say that dictatorial powers should not be given to any one man. It is mainly the Unionist Members who have been concentrating on this theme. Those self-same Members are the most fanatic supporters of the Special Powers Act which gives absolute and total power to one man. It makes him judge, jury and executioner all at once. There must be some consistency in this matter. If it is wrong to give one man dictatorial powers, it must be wrong to give all men dictatorial powers, whatever the circumstances.
The Special Powers Act also from its introduction has created a crisis of confidence in the law. We have heard much talk from the Conservative benches about law and order and, of course, there must be law and order, but with it must come respect for the law. And there has never been, and never can be, respect for the law among the minority community as long as the Special Powers Acts lasts.
The prophets of doom foretell violence from the other side. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said yesterday that 500 gunmen on the Protestant side at this moment may be ready to fire at the Army. If that is the case, the Unionist population have up to the present felt that the Special Powers Act existed to protect them from their Catholic neighbours. Now they obviously feel they have been let down by Westminster. Later on they will realise that all along they have been let down by their own leaders. But at present they are distrustful of Westminster.
Therefore, if the present Government feel that they are appeasing the Protestant population by continuing the Special

Powers Act, they should realise that it may be felt that those powers will soon be used against the Protestants themselves. They do not trust them. When they were in the hands of a Unionist Minister for Home Affairs, they were confident that they would not be used against them. If they are in the hands of a man whom they do not know and whom they have reason to distrust, they will feel that the special powers will be used against them. I am against the use of special powers wherever and against whoever they are operating. If there are 500 gunmen on the other side, I do not recommend that the special powers should be used against them. Special powers are wrong, horrific and inhumane. They should be done away with altogether.
9.15 p.m.
As many hon. Members on this side have demonstrated, the special powers have brutalised the R.U.C. and all the agencies of law enforcement in Northern Ireland. In consequence, there has grown up a complete distrust of the law. Under the Special Powers Act, Brian Faulkner, when he was Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, had power to make any law that he fancied. Constantly we were told that we must be law-abiding and must respect the law. But how can anyone respect a law which he recognises to be a bad one? For a long time, I have not respected most of the laws which have emanated from Stormont. I have been given a number of suspended sentences for demonstrating my disrespect of a particular law emanating from Stormont.
An hon. Member opposite asked why the Law Society had not spoken out against the Special Powers Act. At a recent meeting the Law Society, composed of Protestant and Catholic lawyers, expressed its strong condemnation of the Act. The Act pervades every fibre of society in Northern Ireland. It is totally dominant. Its worst expression is internment. I shall deal with that in a moment, but it shows itself in all sorts of ways.
When there is such a crisis of confidence in the law, it cannot be helped by actions of the sort which perhaps I might illustrate by one example of the powers of Ministers of Home Affairs, and what some of those Ministers used to do. There was a Minister named Topping. There came a time when obviously he was


getting a bit fed up with being Minister for Home Affairs. It so happened that the Recordship of Belfast fell vacant. Mr. Topping appointed himself Recorder of Belfast. Hon. Members might think that that is crazy and could not happen, but it did. How could any anti-Unionist have any confidence in decisions that that man might come to on the bench? It could not be expected.
Internment is the worst aspect of the Special Powers Act. The powers of internment have been amply demonstrated by eminent lawyers in this country, in my own area and elsewhere to be the strongest ever to obtain. It is well known that a former high-ranking Minister in South Africa said that he would give up all his legislation for one or two Sections of the Special Powers Act. That is a fairly high recommendation from the Minister of a country like South Africa. They must be fairly powerful for him to say that.
The Prime Minister and the incoming Secretary of State said that they intended to make a start on the phasing out of internment. What does that mean? I know a man from the City of Derry, Sean Keenan, who told me that, in a previous internment, from the day he heard the talk, the rumour, that internment would be phased out until he was actually released was four years. If that is what the Government mean by phasing out of internment, it is obviously not on.
As I said in a previous debate, phasing out of internment is a nonsense. If it is held to be wrong, then it must be abolished. If it is held to be right, then it must be retained. We cannot have it both ways.
I am coming on to what the Secretary of State designate said about considering the case of every internee. There are no cases to be considered. If there were cases to be considered, why have they not resulted in some kind of legal action? Internment has been with us for almost eight months. It is nonsense now to speak of reviewing each case after eight months. Surely everything is known after eight months. Many brave Members of Parliament have stood up, under the privilege of this House—

Mr. Evelyn King: I seek information. The hon. Gentleman asked why there had been no cases. Will he answer his

own question? There have been 240 murders and not one conviction. Can he tell us why?

Mr. McManus: That is an interesting interjection. The point is that, whoever committed these murders, they have not been caught. If we want to find out all about a man and he is locked behind wire for eight months, surely that provides every possible opportunity of finding out about him. When a man is taken away from his home in the middle of the night, so that he has no time to prepare himself or to cover up incriminating evidence, if there be any, there is every possible opportunity to find out everything about him.
However, excuses are given for not bringing cases. There are allegations of intimidation. That is not a valid argument. Every day in the courts in Northern Ireland people are being sent to prison for 10, 15 or even 20 years. The courts are full; they are jammed. Yet cases are going ahead. So to put up the argument about intimidation is nonsense.
I and most of the minority hold the view that internment is wrong. The British Government may regard it now as an embarrassing blunder, but that is not good enough. It is not enough to say, "We are awfully sorry. We were wrong in 200 cases. We will let those chaps out, but we must hold the rest because we have reason to believe, on information supplied to us"—by a discredited and bigoted Special Branch—"that we must hold them." This is not on. The Government are trying to angle themselves into a position where they can say that the ending of internment is conditional on the ending of violence. That is not on either. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) inadvertently made that point.

Captain Orr: It was not inadvertent.

Mr. McManus: It was inadvertent. The minority will not tolerate 900 hostages being held for the good behaviour of those outside. Some people have been in Long Kesh and other places for almost eight months. They cannot and will not be held as hostages for the good behaviour of people outside Long Kesh. In other words, the ending of internment cannot be connected with the ending of


violence. The men who have been interned for eight months clearly have not been responsible for any violence. How could they be? Of course, one or two have escaped. I do not know what they have been doing. However, the vast majority of the people inside are under surveillance 24 hours a day, so they cannot be responsible. They cannot and will not be used as hostages in political bargaining. I believe that the Secretary of State designate will discover that that is the attitude of the minority, and I believe it is a right and proper attitude.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Member give some estimate of the proportion of those inside who are members of the I.R.A.?

Mr. McManus: If I were to do so in the privilege of Parliament I would be doing what other hon. Members have done. If hon. Members are so convinced that many of the internees are moderates, why not let them go and face the consequences? Then the internees would have some redress, but as we all know they have none. I believe that there are not many, but I will not hazard any guess as I have no positive information.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I ask the question because one sees photographs in the Press of inmates of Long Kesh parading in formation as if they were members of an organisation. We are told in the Press that these are members of the I.R.A. Is that right of wrong?

Mr. Kilfedder: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I think we had better dispose of one interjection at a time or we may forget who is making a speech.

Mr. McManus: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) refused to give way to me and then to another hon. Member. I was trying to redeem the traditions which had been breached earlier. There is no answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). If the hon. Member believes all that he reads in the paper I cannot be responsible for his beliefs.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the hon. Member agree that spokesmen of the I.R.A.

have said on occasions since internment was introduced that lieutenants in the organisations have been interned? Does he also agree that whenever anyone escapes from Long Kesh or Crumlin Road Prison he goes to Dublin and proclaims his affiliation to the I.R.A. and takes pride in the terrible work it has carried out in Northern Ireland resulting in death and mutilation?

Mr. McManus: If that is so, perhaps those who escaped were the only members of the I.R.A.

Mr. McNamara: Does not my hon. Friend recall that the point of this argument is not what people say when they are inside or outside a prison but that by British standards we do not put people inside until we have evidence by which we can show that those people are what we claim they are?

Mr. McManus: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
One of the compelling reasons why the Stormont Parliament had to go is bound up with the Special Powers Act. Not only is there that Act but related legislation emerging from the thinking behind it. I challenge contradiction of this. The only legislation which has emanated directly from Stormont in the last two years and which was not prompted from this Parliament was the Public Order Act, with a few Amendments and the Criminal Justice (Temporary Provisions) Bill. It introduced mandatory sentences while the Public Order Act forbade all sorts of demonstrations.

Miss Devlin: In support of the Amendment and my hon. Friend's speech, I point out that one of the proposals in the laws emanating from Stormont which he may have forgotten has been described as the most reactionary ever to go on a Statute Book. That is the Act referring to collection of debts, whereby they have stolen money won by such organisations as trade unions and organisations, it could be argued, which could be representative of Protestant working-class people. This money has been literally stolen from supplementary benefits and family allowances and it is money which has been paid from taxes and contributions. It was stolen because we went on legitimate rent strikes.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. McManus: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I urge the Secretary of State designate to ensure that this official thievery and robbery from the poor people of my constituency and from all the people of Northern Ireland is discontinued.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that it would be better to say honestly that people have withheld their rates and their rents as a protest, and that it is only right that this money should be recouped to the public purse? If people persist in not co-operating this way, there is no other option to be followed. Although many of us do not want to take this action, it has been forced on us, because these same people want to have social benefits, as, indeed, they need them. Is not the attitude—"Give us the social benefits, but we refuse to meet our obligations"—unjustifiable? Will not the hon. Gentleman admit that privileges carry responsibilities?

Mr. McManus: I am sometimes hopeful that the hon. Gentleman is something of a Socialist, but there he talks like a typical Tory—as if social benefits were a gift from a faceless bureaucrat. They are not. They are what people have earned. They have paid their taxes. Social benefits are not a concession from the State; they are people's due from the State. When the fathers, the brothers, the cousins and the uncles of those interned are released, there will be no problem.

Mr. Fitt: May I interpose a question arising from what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said? My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) mentioned the question of civil disobedience and the withdrawal of rates, to prove the point that 40 per cent. of the minority have withdrawn their consent to being ruled by the Unionist Party. May I ask the hon. Member, who asked such a pertinent question, whether he agrees that many of those involved in the strikes which have occurred in Northern Ireland over the past two days—which I believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, North condemned yesterday evening in the Chamber—will lose one, two or three days' wages, not because they wanted to support the Vanguard

Movement, but because they were intimidated in their employment? Will he agree with me—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Is it in order for an hon. Member, in an interjection, to pose a series of questions to another hon. Member who does not even have the Floor?

The Chairman: It is best for interjections to be as short as possible and for hon. Members, on the whole, not to encourage them too much.

Mr. Fitt: What I was asking related to the question on retaliatory action, which has been put to my hon. Friend. I put this question due to the courtesy of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Was it not civil disobedience that yesterday and today thousands of people took part in the civil disobedience campaign which I believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has condemned? But would he attempt to draw a line of differentiation between those who have involved them selves in rent strikes and rate strikes—

The Chairman: This is going too far altogether. I am not even sure whom the hon. Gentleman is addressing—whether it is me, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), or someone else. All I know is that the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor ought to be allowed to get on with his speech, which a long time ago he said was coming very quickly to an end.

Mr. McManus: Except for my very good nature and good manners in giving way, it would have come to an end. However, I will bring it quickly to an end now, because the Secretary of State designate, who has a reputation for being a pleasant man, is beginning to look a bit unpleasant, and I do not want to disturb his even temper.
The last thing that I will say is that at the moment a sort of special power is in operation, and that is the ban on public parades. I ask the Secretary of State designate to call off that ban immediately, because it is silly, and it has proved to be unworkable. Yesterday, 100,000 people broke it, and it is simply not on. However, I would warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he lets it run over Easter and then lifts it he will be showing that he is not any better than the man who


preceded him because he will be taking a sectarian action, for we all know the significance of Easter and July.

Mr. Maginnis: I should like to return to the Bill before us and support the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). First of all, I offer my condolences to the right hon. Gentleman who has taken on the mantle of the Secretary of State designate for Northern Ireland. I understand very well the great difficulties that lie before him, and as I have listened to this debate this afternoon and this evening I have realised fully that he will need about six heads in addition to the one he already has in order to solve all the problems that he will face during the next 12 months.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Amendment put down by my hon. and gallant Friend gets at the very kernel of what we are all talking about this evening. One aspect of the Special Powers Act has been debated at great length here. It has been argued, mostly from the benches opposite, that the Special Powers Act has created violence, but the Act was brought in not to create violence but to 'top violence which had already been created by the Irish Republican Army at that time. That must be remembered; it is absolutely true.

Miss Devlin: When the hon. Gentleman talks about violence and the Special Powers Act being brought in because of and to prevent violence, would he not attempt, historically and objectively, to remember that his Parliament—the one that he now seeks either to defend or to integrate—was brought in simply because the people who supported his ideal, in the face of a democratic decision taken in 1918 by 83 per cent. of the Irish population—with the threat of violence, the promise of violence, and actual violence—created an artificial State?

Mr. Maginnis: That is not at all relevant to the point that I am making. All I am saying is that to argue that the removal of these special powers by the right hon. Gentleman who will be taking over responsibility would remove the violence is sheer nonsense. Today's debate was necessary because of the violence brought about in Northern Ireland by the I.R.A. We are conferring on the Secretary

of State designate substantial powers, and I would remind him that he is now in the position of head of all the various Ministries which composed the Parliament at Stormont. I know he will have the support of the civil servants but he will have many problems and he must remember that in the end it is the people who matter and not the Parliament. I urge him to look after the interests of the people and of the constituencies in Northern Ireland. Those constituencies will have many problems which would normally be dealt with by their elected Members of Parliament.
The various chiefs of departments will be stood down after the Bill becomes law, and the right hon. Gentleman will need far more than one head to deal with all the problems which will arise. Above all else he should give priority to the problems of the citizens, no matter which side of the fence they belong. The more I listen to the debates and proceedings the more I am convinced—

Mr. McManus: I agree with the hon. Member that the people matter. He is showing such absolute concern for people in constituencies, but would it be a fact that he is the one Unionist Member who is contemplating making way for Brian Faulkner to come to this House?

Mr. Maginnis: I can answer the right hon. Gentleman right away. I was elected to the House to represent the constituents of Armagh and I have no intention of resigning my seat—[Interruption.] It is the people who count in the end. [Interruption.]

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Maginnis: I will not give way. I want to finish the point. I will not speak for anyone but myself. All I have been asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to put the people first so that those who now have no local M.P.s can have their problems dealt with most expeditiously by the new Department. The Ulster Unionist M.P.s at Westminster will have their responsibilities, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not refuse to hear from us complaints which would normally go to Stormont but which we will now have to pass on to him.
I could say a lot about what has been said in the debate, but I understand other


hon. Members wish to speak on the two important matters, Amendment No. 10 and new Clause 1. By this Bill we are bringing upon ourselves responsibilities of which we are not aware. I make the plea that every effort be made to see that some form—I am not saying which form—of regional Parliament should be re established in Northern Ireland.
I have always stood by the suggestion which I have put forward in the House of Commons on many occasions. I believe that in the future the House of Commons, with the added responsibilities of Northern Ireland, will slowly grind to a halt. Therefore, we have to regionalise. If we cannot revive a regional Parliament at Stormont, parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom will grind to a halt. I am asking my right hon. Friend not only to attend to the problems of the people of Northern Ireland—I know that he will do that—but also to give a lot of attention to the resuscitation of the Parliament at Stormont, and, if he can do that, I ask him for goodness' sake to take the ultimate step and do it directly from the House of Commons.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps I could observe first to the Secretary of State designate that if he did not know that he had a difficult job, the last five hours will have brought it to his notice.
I concern myself mainly with new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 13, which is very germane and important to the argument in new Clause 1 put down by the Liberal benches. I remind the Committee that although new Clause 1 seeks to do away with the Special Powers Act, new Clause 13 would give powers to the Secretary of State designate to introduce regulations for the preservation of peace and maintenance of order in Northern Ireland.
Before coming to that, with regard to Amendment No. 10, put down by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the Secretary of State designate has already given assurances that parliamentary scrutiny is to be strengthened, and I hope that he will indicate tonight how he will seek to strengthen scrutiny in this respect. Overall, from this side of the House, we support the temporary powers that are given to the right hon. Gentleman, but

the whole matter of parliamentary scrutiny is one to which we shall have increasingly to put our minds.
In the Second Reading debate I argued that one of the things that marks out Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is that it has a permanent Special Powers Act. That is not so for the rest of the United Kingdom; it is for historic reasons in Northern Ireland. One finds other things as well when looking at legislation. For example, there are differences in trade union legislation in Northern Ireland as compared with this country. The major aspect that we are dealing with in this group of Amendments is that of the Special Powers Acts. These Acts, which are permanent, need examination. So that we get it right—because what matters tonight is what the right hon. Gentleman says about this—yesterday evening my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said:
I therefore make a firm request to the Minister to re-examine the existing special powers and to come to a conclusion on how many of them are needed. I ask that he should justify their need in the course of a White Paper. We will give him time to review this matter and publish his conclusions in due course so that Parliament can take its own view on these matters. We all find these powers repulsive, we none of us want them, but the Government must be given the opportunity of making their case on them before we come to a final conclusion.
In winding up, the Attorney-General, said:
With regard to the special powers review and the Special Powers Act, of which many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken, my right hon. Friend wants to make it clear that he intends not only to review the case of each and every person who is now interned under the Special Powers Act, but he also intends to review the whole operation of the Act and of the regulations."—[Official Report, 28th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 253–363.]
Tonight we seek more information from the right hon. Gentleman on this matter.
I have here, on the question of the Special Powers Act, a document called "Reconstruction", put forward by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. It had this to say:
The Committee recognises that a democratic state requires powers to protect the security and the liberty of its citizens. Legislation appropriate to this purpose, which is in accord with the international obligations


entered into by the United Kingdom Government, and which protects the principle of innocence until guilt is proven, should, without delay, take the place of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act N.I. 1922, which is in conflict with internationally accepted standards of justice and human rights.
The trade unions of Northern Ireland are not asking that there shall be no legislation, but they are asking that the permanent Special Powers Act shall be removed.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has moved new Clause 1, and the major Amendment that goes with it is Amendment No. 13, which also stands in the names of Liberal Members. Under these proposals, after removing the Special Powers Act the Government would have power to make regulations. These would not be made under the Special Powers Act but would be brought to the House in the manner to which we are accustomed, and would be justified to the House. It is important that that point should be made clear.
Time and again in this debate hon. Members opposite have concentrated on the Special Powers Act. None of them has referred to the fact that in Amendment No. 13 the Liberal Party has put forward a proposal whereby, if there were need for powers to deal with security, they could be made available, but in the way suggested. The Liberal Members do not simply say that we should remove the Special Powers Act; they ask, first, for removal of the permanent legislation and then for new legislation to come before the House. There is a difficulty. This Bill is unlike the Northern Ireland Act which, on an issue which merited longer discussion, was recently rushed through in one day. This Bill is the last-resort legislation which gives power to the right hon. Gentleman to take over the rôle of Stormont. It is not dealing with special powers except in so far as he takes over all the powers which up to now have been exercised by Stormont.
There is a gap in time until Parliament reassembles after Easter. If we passed only new Clause 1 the regulations could not be made until we reassembled. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North is aware of this. He is concerned with the principle involved. It is a technical and

difficult problem. It raises problems for all those in Ulster—Northern Ireland, to be more precise—for whom the right hon. Gentleman and Parliament would be responsible from the moment this Bill is passed. Those of us who are asking the police and the Army to act on our behalf should be very much aware of this fact. This is, however, a line of approach which could be followed. In my view it should not be done quickly. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the argument that has been put forward on this side of the Committee in the spirit in which it was made. We are not seeking merely to remove the Special Powers Act and leave a blank.
The right hon. Gentleman has to create, and I know he wants to create, a new situation. The Special Powers Act in its present form is a symbol in Northern Ireland. Even when one goes there for the first time it marks them out from the rest of the United Kingdom. Symbols of this type are best removed and we would be interested in the right hon. Gentleman's wider thoughts on this. I cannot expect him to commit himself in detail this evening, but can he tell us what sort of procedures he has in mind for the House? What timing has he in mind for the Special Powers Act as a whole?
I presume that if and when he takes action on internment his powers will be taken from the Bill that we are now discussing. I have here a copy of a regulation passed in 1970 in the Stormont Parliament dealing with public processions and meetings, Regulation No. 198 of 1970. There is a long list under the Special Powers Act, and we heard the worst of them earlier. In the last Administration at one point of time, I think properly, marches were stopped. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman will put his mind to this part of the Special Powers Act. It may be that as part of this change of opinion which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to bring about perhaps the traditional parades could be allowed once more.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that in the House the attitude has been adopted that by stopping various parades peace would prevail? Over Easter there will be marches involving the minority and traditional parades involving the Loyalist


organisations. Does he not think that it would be a good time for a gesture from the Secretary of State designate to take action on what is common ground in the House and to allow these traditional parades to go on? I should like to see all the parades going on, but let us start with the traditional parades.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has already spoken to me on this point and this is one of the reasons why I raised the matter.

Mr. Fitt: The marches are not banned under the Special Powers Act but under the Public Order Act. There is a great difference. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he says that there will be traditional marches on the Republican and the Loyalist sides. I understand that the Secretary of State designate may be visiting Northern Ireland. If he allows the Easter marches to proceed it is almost certain that he will have to allow the Loyalist marches. If he permits one, he must permit all the others to take place. I suggest that my hon. Friend makes a plea to the Secretary of State designate to call off this ban.

Mr. Rees: I am advised that the case in the Divisional Court which gave rise to the legislation was brought under the Special Powers Act.

Mr. Orme: Under this Bill the Secretary of State designate will not have to revert to the Special Powers Act if he wants to stop marches. He will have the right by Order in Council to take such decisions.

Mr. Rees: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with the legal advice that he has—I am getting into deep waters—

Mr. McManus: Would my hon. Friend also remind the Secretary of State designate, if he does not remove this ban on marches, that there are at least three hon. Members who might be going to jail? If he will keep us in mind…[Laughter.]

Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Question put, That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Oscar Murton.]

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 8.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Goodhart, Philip


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Goodhew, Victor


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Coleman, Donald
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Astor, John
Concannon, J. D.
Green, Alan


Atkins, Humphrey
Coombs, Derek
Grieve, Percy


Atkinson, Norman
Cooper, A. E.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Cormack, Patrick
Gummer, Selwyn


Balniel, Lord
Dalyell, Tam
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Benyon, W.
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Biffen, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Biggs-Davison, John
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harper, Joseph


Booth, Albert
Dixon, Piers
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Boscawen, Robert
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bowden, Andrew
Drayson, G. B.
Haselhurst, Alan


Braine, Bernard
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hawkins, Paul


Bray, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Hayhoe, Barney


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Buck, Antony
English, Michael
Horam, John


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eyre, Reginald
Hornby, Richard


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Farr, John
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Carlisle, Mark
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Channon, Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, David (Guildford)


Chapman, Sydney
Foot, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fowler, Norman
Iremonger, T. L.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fox, Marcus
James, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Clegg, Walter
Gibson-Watt, David
Jessel, Toby




Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Money, Ernle
Shelton. William (Clapham)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Monro, Hector
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham,S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jopling, Michael
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Speed, Keith


Judd, Frank
Morrison, Charles
Spence, John


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Murray, Ronald King
Sproat, Iain


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Normanton, Tom
Steel, David


Kinsey, J. R.
O'Halloran, Michael
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Kitson, Timothy
Orme, Stanley
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Knox, David
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sutcliffe, John


Lane, David
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pardoe, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Leonard, Dick
Parkinson, Cecil
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pavitt, Laurie
Torney, Tom


Lomas, Kenneth
Peel, John
Trew, Peter


Loveridge, John
Pendry, Tom
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Luce, R. N.
Percival, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


MacArthur, Ian
Perry, Ernest G.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


McCrindle. R. A.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Waddington, David


McGuire, Michael
Price, William (Rugby)
Ward, Dame Irene


McLaren, Martin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Weatherill, Bernard


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
White, Roger (Gravesend)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Raison, Timothy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNamara, J. Kevin
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Whitlock, William


Maddan, Martin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Marsden, F.
Redmond, Robert
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marten, Neil
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woof, Robert


Mather, Carol
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Millan, Bruce
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. Oscar Murton an


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Hamish Gray


Moate, Roger
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)



NOES


Chichester-Clark, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Kilfedder, James
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maginnis, John E.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Stanley McMaster and


Maude, Angus
Pounder, Rafton
Rev. Ian Paisley

Question accordingly agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Rees: I was putting to the Leader of the House that certain aspects of the special powers for which he will be responsible might be amended, and I mentioned marches on which there was some agreement.
I see clearly that new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 13, if accepted, would leave a gap. There are strong feelings on the principle of the Special Powers Act but, given that the two sides of the Committee are much closer together than was revealed during the discussion, it would be much better to avoid taking a vote. What is at issue on the special powers is the symbol of the Special Powers Act. We are not arguing that

the United Kingdom should not have powers to deal with security.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Mr. Whitelaw: The debate has been going for a considerable time and I think it is reasonable for me to speak now. If one or two of my hon. Friends feel that they still have something to tell me afterwards I shall quite understand that, but I hope that we shall be able to get on.
This is an extremely important debate. The powers that the Bill gives to me on legislation by Order in Council, to which Amendment No. 10 refers, and in relation to the Special Powers Act, to which new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 13 refer, are extremely important. The debate has fallen into two channels and I will deal first with one and then the other.
I have very much appreciated the immense importance of this debate in the House of Commons. I say quite sincerely


that it has enabled me to learn a great deal. It would be wrong to imagine that I have learnt exactly the same story on any particular issue, but I have learned, if I did not know it before, that my task is extremely difficult. That is good for me to know. I have also learned that there are areas of agreement and have heard the views of people on the spot about the various aspects of responsibilities which I shall be assuming. That again is immensely important.
I start by replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis), who made an important point about serving the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. I have said constantly since I was given my responsibilities that, of course, that will be my task and that I will do everything in my power to carry it through. I have been given very excellent Ministers to assist me, and I shall pay due attention to all the correspondence which I receive from Northern Ireland Members in the House of Commons. I also gave an assurance in an earlier discussion that I will write to all the Members at Stormont expressing our willingness to consider any constituency points on matters which were formerly within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. I think that is right and I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh.
I turn to Amendment No. 10. I fully realise the considerable powers I shall be given if this part of the legislation goes through. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) dislikes this situation and I well understand his feelings. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is worried about the prospects, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). The hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) feels that it is reasonable I should have these powers, but also feels that I must show cause, as I shall attempt to do. This point was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
In regard to the basic powers, nobody who had assumed responsibility could be anything but a little worried about having such powers if they were not purely to be assumed on a temporary basis. And it must be said that they are

on a temporary basis. This Bill is a temporary Bill. It is important that they must be looked at in the context of temporary powers.
I have to satisfy the Committee as to how we should properly deal with them. I wish carefully to consider what sort of Committee procedure might be suitable for dealing with the Stormont legislation which will eventually have to come here. I should like to consider how best this should be done, and should like to have discussions through the usual channels and also discussions with Northern Ireland Members.
I also wish to make the important point that, while this procedure would be used for some of the legislation which has been part discussed at Stormont, and although it might be used for some of the legislation which is before Stormont and which is part of reforms in which many hon. Members in this House have been interested in the past, I should be very chary of introducing by this method anything in the nature of the fresh legislation unless I were forced to do so for some very special reason.

Captain Orr: Will that include anything as large as a Local Government Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: One Local Government Bill is through Stormont, but there are consequential parts of it still before Stormont. As those are very much part of some of the reforms which have been discussed in this House, I shall seek to bring those forward. Those are the ones that I wish to discuss. But I should be very chary of initiating new legislation under this procedure unless I was driven to it for some very special reason. I hope that those are reasonable assurances for what I accept are considerable powers to have in the House of Commons.
Perhaps I might turn now to the Special Powers Act—

Mr. Fitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he will be able to recruit an adequate staff of civil servants to help him in his Herculean task?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I shall see that his views are well noted. In fact, I will be glad to have them noted. I am being extremely well treated in this matter. Naturally, the staff is being recruited. In


my contacts with the Northern Irish Permanent Secretaries last Saturday, I was anxious to make it clear that naturally I shall have all the Northern Irish civil servants as well, and that I shall do everything possible to weld them into one team. I realise the problems involved in that, but I shall do all that I can to ensure that that is done. Already I have some very able people in my staff at this end. I shall of course have more. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need have any fears on that score. Indeed, it may be that before long other hon. Members will accuse me of having built a great empire for myself. I have no intention of doing that.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say earlier that Questions which would normally have been accepted and dealt with at Stormont could be taken here? If that is so, bearing in mind that local government was being taken over by Stormont, does this mean that a new procedure will be set up here whereby local government matters, which formerly were out of order, might be discussed here?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that I said that. If I were to say that, I should be going further than I have been able to do in my researches to date. I said that I would see how to deal by way of a Committee procedure with any legislation from Stormont that I had to take through the House on the basis of the affirmative Resolution procedure. As for what is in order by way of Questions to me in the House, I think that it would be dangerous to stray into those matters. But I shall have no desire to hide behind anything because I am only too anxious to be answerable in the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It has been the normal procedure in Stormont for hon. Members to contact the private secretaries of the various Ministers with their personal constituency complaints. Will that still be in order, rather than hon. Members having to send all their correspondence on intricate matters concerning housing, water supplies and electricity supplies to the right hon. Gentleman? Thousands of houses in Ulster have no water or electricity. My correspondence sometimes consists of more than 300 complaints in a week. I should not like

to have to place that on the right hon. Gentleman's table. Shall we be able to go direct to the Departments concerned in order to get these jobs done?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall look into what he has said. Since he has made the suggestion of saving me correspondence, I must not look a gift horse in the mouth. I shall look into this procedure. As all hon. Members of the House of Commons know, there is the usual procedure whereby the private offices of Ministers may be contacted. That procedure will continue in respect of my own Ministers. We shall all have private offices in both London and Belfast. We shall be available at both ends, and so will our private offices.

Captain Orr: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of legislation, perhaps I might put one point to him. The electorate in Ulster is now deprived of the right of private Members legislation. Stormont Members have a very good record of private Members legislation. Problems about divorce law, and so on, should be dealt with without too much delay. Will my right hon. Friend look at the possibility of how we get around that one?

Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I will. I am beginning to get into an area where, while I am at the moment the Lord President, I have to remember that basically I am no longer the Leader of the House. Therefore, I must not in any way start to give hostages to fortune for my successor. Nevertheless, I note what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I do not think that I should go further.
Perhaps I might now turn to the Special Powers Act which basically comes up on new Clause 1. I accept at once that this is a very important matter, which arouses very strong emotions. It is also a matter which no Government and no Parliament likes. Therefore, it is something which has to be very carefully looked at.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) made the very helpful point, with which I hope the Committee will agree, that new Clause 1 raises the major principle. I accept that it was helpful to have the debate iniated in this way. However, there is the problem of the gap in time on technical grounds.
As the Committee knows, I have to take some extremely urgent decisions in Northern Ireland as soon as this place and another place decide to give me—if they do—the power to take those decisions. It would be wrong for me to make too many commitments in advance of having had a chance at least to look at what is happening and to study the position on the ground.
In present circumstances, with British troops deployed there, I fear that it would be gravely irresponsible and quite wrong simply to remove the Special Powers Act just like that. Therefore, I could not agree to do so, though I do not think that those who spoke on those lines really want me to do that, considering the technical position in which I find myself. Hon. Members realise that I have this problem. Therefore, it would be wrong to repeal the Special Powers Act on those grounds.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that many of us who object to this Act on principle appreciate the technical difficulty in which he finds himself. However, is he able to give us a categorical assurance that if the Amendment is not pressed to a Division he will be in a position within, say, a month after the Easter Recess to present to the House his reasoned case and a new Bill on the emergency and special powers?

Mr. Whitelaw: Last night my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that I would review the Special Powers Act and the regulations made under it. That is the promise that I have made. However, I could not tie myself down to a specific time when I should be ready to report to the House, because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, once I had done that I should be honour bound to produce it within that time. Again, having no powers at the moment and not having had any opportunity in the last five days to do so, it would be wrong to make a promise unless I was absolutely certain that I could fulfil it in time. Therefore, I cannot go as far as that. I will review the Act and, when I have done so, I will report to the House. There are some regulations which I might find it possible to modify, change or repeal. I do not say that I will, but I might. If I did, I could

bring such regulations before the House and carry them through by the normal procedure for regulations. That I can do and if I find it right to do so, that I will do. I hope that those are reasonable assurances on the working of an Act which I think it proper to give me time to study.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: For those of us interested in this new Clause this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is particularly interesting and significant. Is he aware that we do not want to tie him down on the question of time, but we hope that he will work on this with as much speed as possible? Is the position that he will come to the House at the earliest possible moment to indicate which particular special powers he regards in the future context as no longer necessary and that the powers which he wishes to retain will be specifically put before the House in the form of new regulations, so that they will be subject to vote and debate?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was not going so far as the second proposition, because I do not want to commit myself on that. Certainly I think it would be right to review and to report and if I came to the conclusion that there were some particular regulations which without prejudice to the rest of the review I could change, modify or repeal, I would not wait for the final review to bring those particular ones forward. I could not go further on that at this stage.
It is important to remember that certain of these powers are alas in present circumstances clearly necessary if the campaign against terrorism and against violence is to be prosecuted with the vigour which I am absolutely sure it must be. I am afraid that I cannot accept what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) about there being no connection between violence and internment, because of course there is and must be a connection. If the violence really were to end and if there were a substantial reduction in tension, that must affect one's whole attitude to internment.

Miss Devlin: As I understand the right hon. Gentleman's position in relating violence to the present conditions of internment, surely on purely logical


grounds he must understand that some 700 or 800, possibly 900—we do not know the number, ranging somewhere between 700 and 900—currently held in concentration camps—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] Hon. Members may not like that term, but if we are sure of nothing else, one thing which we must be sure of is that not one of the persons held in the camps can be responsible since they are in internment or concentration camps, have it as hon. Members wish.
Therefore there is a valid point that the violence may well continue, but the question of hostages is raised. If violence continues such as it is, whatever its political motivation, it is continued by people not in the internment camps but by people outside them. It is totally unfair and illogical and unreasonable that people inside internment camps should be held as hostages for actions of people outside.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall be very careful what I say because my words in the current circumstances are very important and I do not wish to inflame anything. I hope that on reflection the hon. Lady will think that the phrase she used at the beginning of her intervention was unfortunate. I think that it must weigh with her as it weighs with me and must weigh with everyone in the Committee that conditions under which people are released who it is believed it was right to intern must be relevant to what happens. A very large number in the House of Commons would say that there are interned people who are definitely known terrorists and gunmen. If they were released at a time of continued violence, that would be irresponsible. Therefore, the question of violence must enter into it.

Mr. Fitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that rumours have been circulating in Northern Ireland over the past fortnight, particularly since the announcement of the Government's initiative, that 100, 150 or 200 internees are to be released? I have asked repeatedly in the House of Commons that some Minister—I thought that it would have been the Home Secretary, but it may now be the Secretary of State of Northern Ireland designate—should go into every case on the files. I ask this question of the whole Committee. Why is it that the idea can be promulgated that 150 people are to be

released this week or next week? Is it that they were not guilty and should not have been interned? These rumours were circulating before the Secretary of State designate had an opportunity to study the cases.
This question is very important to the whole situation in Northern Ireland. I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is to give the matter a great deal of his personal time and that he is leaving for Northern Ireland tomorrow and will be trying to evaluate the whole situation there. Can he give us any indication of when a move is to be made on internment, whether it is to be this week, next week, or the week after?

Mr. Whitelaw: As regards the figures which have been circulating, I, too, have read the rumours in the Press, but I have no responsibility for rumours. I have no responsibility for the situation until the House of Commons gives me that responsibility. I cannot be in any way responsible for this and I would not wish to be.

Mr. McManus: The Secretary of State designate may think that we should not be interrupting him so often, but we are dealing with the freedom of 900 men and an extra few moments of his precious time will not be badly spent. There are at least four internees at the moment who have been recommended for release but who, because they would not sign on oath an undertaking to be of good behaviour for ever more and obey every law that might be passed in the future, have not been released. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to continue such a barbaric and ludicrous practice as to ask a man to undertake to keep whatever law might be passed in future?

Mr. Whitelaw: I accept at once that we are dealing with an extremely important matter of people's lives, freedom and liberty. That is why I have given way on many occasions. However, that is the sort of question which I insist that I should not be asked to answer until I have considered the whole case very clearly with my advisers here and in Northern Ireland. I have many people to discuss these matters with.

Mr. Kilfedder: rose—

Mr. Whitelaw: Is it very important?

Mr. Kilfedder: It is relevant. I do not wish to waste time. I wish to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and, South Tyrone (Mr. McManus)about internees being asked to give an assurance that they would not get involved in criminal activities. Is it not right that in the courts in this country a person who has not been found guilty of any offence can be bound over to keep the peace for a certain period?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the whole, this shows how wise I was in the first instance to say that I wanted to look into all this. If there is one person who should not be asked to give an answer about the English legal system, in the presence of a good many experts sitting around me, that person is me. It is very important that I should not seek to get drawn into that.
I made clear in my speech yesterday the position I would adopt towards internment. I have answered as many questions as I reasonably should be asked to answer tonight about how I thought I would operate the special powers and the difficult position over internment. I hope I have given the best indication I can on these matters and have tried to be as helpful as possible about the handling of legislation which I will have to bring before the House under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
I cannot give a time for the completion of the review of the Special Powers Act, but I shall do it urgently. If there are regulations which I can modify or remove before the review is complete I shall do it. I hope that on these considerable assurances—I accept they do not acquire the precision which the Committee might wish but they do acquire considerable precision in view of the limited time I have had to look into these matters—the Committee will feel it possible not to press either of the Amendments.

Mr. Raison: Can my right hon. Friend set out clearly why it would be impossible for the House of Commons to legislate over this period of a year for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: It would not be impossible. I have made clear that I would hope not to introduce any fresh legislation unless it was for some very specific pur-

pose. I must be very careful here, because I would be the last person to give hostages which would not be satisfactory to my successor as Leader of the House or to the Government Chief Whip. I have said that if I had to introduce legislation on some emergency I would come to the House and seek to do it in the proper manner. But the procedure under the Order in Council is necessary, because there is some legislation which is part-discussed in Stormont and there is some which is very urgent and consequential upon reforms which the House as a whole wants. Therefore, it would be right to get that legislation through, and I wish to try to do it on this procedure but to devise some form of discussion which will be helpful and make the arrangement as best it can be in obviously difficult circumstances.

Sir Elwyn Jones: May I take it that the generality of the right hon. Gentleman's observations about what he claims to be the association between violence and internment in no way qualifies his undertaking to review the case of each and every person who is now interned under the Special Powers Act?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because I referred to what I said yesterday. The Committee would not wish to hear me read out what I have said in the past, but this gives me the chance to say absolutely that, yes, I will review each particular case personally.
I do not wholly accept in this regard what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and others. I am taking responsibility for the matter and I am answerable to the House. Surely that is something I should take personal responsibility for as far as I have the power. I should have thought that was the proper thing for me to do and what the House would expect me to do. As for the hours it will take me, I can deal with that. It is my duty and I will do it.

Mr. Thorpe: The Committee is extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has tried to meet the points that have been made. We thank him for giving as many undertakings as he could in a very difficult situation.
On Amendment No. 10, I am not personally convinced that all the legislative proposals, however restrictive, cannot be dealt with by the House of Commons in the normal way. It may be that an Ulster Grand Committee could be the forum in which there should be discussion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Thorpe: If 11 hon. Gentlemen and one hon. Lady would find that impossible, that merely proves how difficult is the right hon. Gentleman's task. I shall not pursue that suggestion further.
The Ulster Members have not only a right to be consulted but also a right to play a greater legislative part in the proceedings which affect Northern Ireland than they would have in a 1½ hour Prayer.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has now seen the wisdom I had in saying that I would seek to devise a Committee procedure to this end and would have discussions with the Northern Ireland Members and others as to what the best procedure should be. I am very anxious to find such a procedure and, therefore, to give them considerably more than the 1½ hours under the Resolution procedure. I hope that that helps the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thorpe: On that matter, I wish the right hon. Gentleman good luck. If I may be forgiven for putting it for a moment in a Papal context, I may find out where the chimney of his Ministry is and watch for the white smoke.
Regarding the special powers, the right hon. Gentleman has conceded that no one wishes to leave the troops without protection. That is why the House of Commons was prepared to vote for the previous legislation, but why my hon. Friends and I wished to make it an Act of only one year's duration. But that was about a fortnight ago and that procedure was not then fashionable.
However, what we had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to say was that not only would he come before the House of Commons and say which parts of the Special Powers Acts he

no longer required, but also that he would, in effect—this is the value of Amendment No. 13—say specifically what special powers he required and that they would be subject to parliamentary debate. We do not merely want to know what dead branches have been pruned from the special powers tree. If there are to be special powers in any part of the United Kingdom, we want to ensure on the same basis as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) full parliamentary discussion of legislation. If the House of Commons is to have responsibility for Northern Ireland, any special powers must also be subject to the fullest discussion in the House of Commons. It must be the House of Commons which probes, checks, challenges and debates each of these matters. Therefore, I am at last beginning to see why there is some logic between new Clause 1 and Amendment No. 10, although initially I thought that they had no connection with each other.
Speaking on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am afraid that we feel that it is necessary to divide the Committee on new Clause 1, because we want to put on record our abhorrence for the Draconian powers which are retained in the Special Powers Act and which are still, therefore, powers which the House of Commons is operating in part of the United Kingdom. It is an appalling Act. By putting on record our abhorrence of it, we shall strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's position in saying, "I shall not merely say what we do not need but I shall say which are the specific powers I shall ask the House of Commons to allow me to continue." That is a slightly different approach. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he would return with the knowledge that they had the support of the whole House of Commons. This would be of much greater value and not something which he inherited from Stormont. It would be something which had been debated, agreed, disagreed or amended by the House of Commons.

Mr. Winterton: I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate because it is important the Loyalist majority in Northern Ireland should be clear that there are certain Conservative Members who are prepared to believe in the case of Northern Ireland and in Stormont and


who are actively willing to support it in this House.
I support Amendment No. 10 and at the same time strongly oppose new Clause 1. It is wrong for the 1,500,000 people in Northern Ireland that legislation which affects their everyday lives should be passed in this House—a House in which those people are inadequately represented now that Stormont has been prorogued.
We have heard much criticism from the Opposition benches about Stormont. It should be clearly established and put on record that election to Stormont is based on a one-man one-vote system. This is important since, judging by some of the criticism which has been levelled at Stormont today, it would seem that this is not the case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance that Northern Irish representation, from whatever party or sector, will be increased, because I believe Stormont, having been prorogued for a year, will never form part of a legislature again in the history of this country.
I oppose new Clause 1 which seeks to put the Special Powers Act into limbo, just as the Bill as a whole puts Stormont into limbo. Although I am an active Member on the Government side of the House, I strongly oppose the Bill, and indeed I voted accordingly last night. I cannot bring myself to vote for something which, unfortunately, will only worsen a tragic situation. I wish my right hon. Friend all the luck in the world in his new position—[Interruption.] And I only hope that miracles can be worked because, if anyone in the present circumstances can work miracles, I believe it is the Secretary of State designate.
Criticism has been levelled at the Special Powers Act, but I believe unpleasant and unpalatable measures are necessary and need to be available if freedom and decency are threatened.
It has been said by the Opposition that internment is wrong and that many people who have no case to answer have been interned. I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe that during the last war peaceful civilians, because of their tenuous connections with people in Germany, were interned here for their own protection and to prevent their carrying

out any activities against this country. For these reasons I strongly support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on Amendment No. 10, and I strongly oppose new Clause 1.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to make my position clear on the vote which is to be taken shortly. Every Member of the House is aware that the situation in Northern Ireland is not a normal one. I go a long way with other Members of this House who stand for the absolute freedom of the individual under the law. If in Northern Ireland we could establish a society where everyone was equal under the law and everyone was equally subject to the law, we would be in a state of peace. But let no one in this House think we are in normal circumstances in Northern Ireland.
It would be absolutely wrong to take away powers that have been put on the Statute Book at Stormont to deal with terrorism and leave the Secretary of State designate with no power until he has had time to review the law, present a White Paper and perhaps bring forward consequent legislation. The Special Powers Act was brought into operation in 1922. If hon. Members cast their minds back they will know that in 1922 a deliberate attempt was made by terrorists to strangle the State of Northern Ireland at birth. At that time there was civil war in the South. Irishmen were fighting Irishmen to settle a power struggle in favour of one personality. We all know about the murder of Michael Collins, about the rise of the various factions in the South.
It is right to say that for many years this Act was held in abeyance but it was never rescinded. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell us how many people have been whipped under the Act since 1922 or how many coroner's courts were not allowed to carry out their duties. I would say that it would be a small number. This is not the time to completely sweep from the Statute Book the powers given to the right hon. Gentleman to fight subversive elements in the community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) underlined the fact that the Special Powers


Act has been used against both sections of the community. In all these powers given to the right hon. Gentleman what about accountability? What about the Public Accounts Committee at Stormont, now abolished? What about Estimates. Will there be some way whereby Northern Ireland Members can look at the Estimates of money to be spent in Northern Ireland and some way of looking at the accounts to see how that money has been spent? Will there be some way whereby we can review this matter? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to throw up his hands in horror about a Grand Committee. I know he detests committees. During all his time at Stormont I do not think he sat on any Committee. It is not in keeping with the responsibilities of all of us to say that the House will have to spend more time on Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland Members are not prepared to spend more time. We will all have to give time to this. This Committee is learning tonight what is on its plate. This is only the first night. We can look forward to many more.

Mr. Kilfedder: Although I am fervently opposed to the Bill I wish the Secretary of State designate well in his task. I do not agree with a policy of non-co-operation because it would be against the best interests of Ulster and we must deplore it. I want Ulster to survive and I sincerely hope that the law-abiding majority who have suffered so much and shown such forbearance will continue to be patient and wait to see the outcome of the work of my right hon. Friend.
Many allegations have been put forward tonight about Northern Ireland, about the way in which the Unionist Party has used its power, as if the Unionist Party had created Ulster and the Stormont Parliament, and as though the Stormont Government carried out a policy of repression of the minority.
11.0 p.m.
It should be remembered that the leaders of that day of the Unionist Party, Sir Edward Carson and others, fought against the creation of the Stormont Parliament, and this indicates, if nothing else will indicate to hon. Members opposite,

that if all the Unionists of Ulster were interested and still are interested in maintaining the union between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, it is not the case that we wish to repress—

Miss Devlin: Surely the hon. Member cannot forget his great hero, Mr. Carson, long since deceased? He said "We will build a Protestant state and a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people". What on earth is the hon. Gentleman talking about? He is talking about being British, but—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Would the hon. Lady kindly come back to the Amendment?

Miss Devlin: On a point of order I was referring, without casting reflections on the Chair, to—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. The Committee would be grateful for your guidance. I yield to no one in my admiration of the ability of Irish hon. Members to make speeches in interventions in other people's speeches, and I make no complaint about that.

Mr. Orme: This is not a point of order either.

Mr. Maude: Yes, it is. If the hon. Member would listen instead of interrupting, I was going on to ask whether during a long intervention in a speech an hon. Member is entitled under the rules of order to make an intervention in that intervention? It would be helpful to know.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The course the hon. Gentleman has referred to is to be deprecated.

Mr. Kilfedder: In reply to the hon. Lady.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Kilfedder: It was not Lord Carson who made the remark quoted in this Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Kilfedder: I find myself in very difficult circumstances, because I raised a point of order earlier, when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was speaking, because during the debate on this Clause many allegations and false slanders have been made about the Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member will be much more free of difficulty if he keeps to the Amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to answer arguments contrary to his view? Hon. Gentlemen and the hon. Lady opposite have made accusations and have stated their views forthrightly and are entitled to do so, but surely an hon. Member of this side of the Committee equally has the right to answer?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members must stay in order, whatever points of view they hold.

Mr. Kilfedder: I will continue on the Amendment ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), and perhaps I could refer back to the origin of Northern Ireland which is relevant to this question. What Lord Carson stated was that there can be no permanent resting place between complete union and total separation, and this is where I disagree with my hon. Friends on this side, because I believe that total integration is what is needed.
I support Amendment No. 10 because I deplore, as, I think, all people who are interested in democracy and in the rights of the individual must deplore, a procedure by which legislation by Order in Council is permitted in this Parliament. I putdown an Amendment, which, unfortunately, will not be called, to provide for a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, because the Government will have to provide some system by which hon. Members can discuss legislation which at the moment is in the pipeline at Stormont and which will have to be discussed in detail before it can become law.
What also worries me is the statement which my right hon. Friend made a few moments ago about the tabling of Ques-

tions. As I understood it originally, anyone here could put down a Question on matters which at thmoment are within the jurisdiction solely of the Northern Ireland Parliament. From what my right hon. Friend has just said it would seem that a dividing line is to be drawn, and I think we ought to have some clarification of that point.

Mr. Whitelaw: It may help my hon. Friend not to continue his speech too long if I intervene simply to say that I never said any such thing. I said I was perfectly prepared to look into the position about Questions, and that decisions on what Questions would be in order were not a matter for me but for the Chair, but that I would do everything I could to answer as many Questions as possible, because that is what I want to do. That is not what my hon. Friend said I said.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am finishing my remarks and I do not wish to delay the Committee. We have many other important Amendments to discuss and I know that hon. Members, certainly on this side, are anxious to see them discussed in detail. All, therefore, that I would do is ask my hon. Friends to support this Amendment and to go with us into the Division Lobby.

Captain Orr: I think one detects what often happens in the Chamber at this time of night—a certain degree of irritability with the parliamentary process. Accordingly, I do not intend to delay the Committee very long. I would simply like to thank my right hon. Friend, first of all for his patience; he has been extremely patient, and has sought to help the Committee as best he could. I should also like to thank him for what he said about the Committee procedure, to the effect that he is going to look at that possibility.
It is extraordinarily difficult. What we have to try to find is not simply an extension of the ordinary procedure of making a Prayer against a fait accompli in the form of legislation. What we would like, if my right hon. Friend, with all his ingenuity, can devise it, is a procedure by which legislation embodied in an Order in Council can be discussed in a proper way and with possibility of amendment.
I hope he will bear that in mind. We will try to help him devise such a procedure, because that is the only way in which one can have meaningful discussion of such legislation. The importance of that is illustrated by the fact that he said that one of the measures he might have to produce by the Order in Council procedure would be a Local Government Bill, very large, highly comprehensive, with all kinds of local matters involved in it. It could not be adequately discussed by a Prayer against an Order in Council. It really ought to be considered in greater detail than would be possible by that procedure.

We are grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said, and we shall try to help him in so far as he can devise a new procedure. But this is all ministerial assurance for the future; it is not in the Statute. The Bill still takes away parliamentary government from Northern Ireland. It does not substitute parliamentary government by this House.

Therefore, I cannot accede to my right hon. Friend's request to withdraw the Amendment, and I must ask my hon. Friends to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 186.

Division No. 107.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Biggs-Davison, John
Maude, Angus
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Chichester-Clark, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Winterton, Nicholas


James, David
Molyneaux, James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Paisley, Rev. Ian



Kilfedder, James
Pardoe, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMaster, Stanley
Soref, Harold
Captain L.P.S. Orr and


Maginnis, John E.
Steel, David
Mr. Rafton Pounder.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Duffy, A. E. P.
James, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dykes, Hugh
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth
Eden, Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Astor, John
English, Michael
Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Farr, John
Judd, Frank


Balniel, Lord
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Benyon, W.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kinsey, J. R.


Biffen, John
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Kitson, Timothy


Booth, Albert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Boscawen, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Bowden, Andrew
Fowler, Norman
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Fox, Marcus
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bray, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
Le Marchant, Spencer


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhew, Victor
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buck, Antony
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Green, Alan
Loveridge, John


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Grieve, Percy
Luce, R. N.


Carlisle, Mark
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McCrindle, R. A.


Chapman, Sydney
Gummer, Selwyn
McGuire, Michael


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Churchill, W. S.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNamara. J. Kevin


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maddan, Martin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Harper, Joseph
Marsden, F.


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


Cockeram, Eric
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Roy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Coleman, Donald
Havers, Michael
Millan, Bruce


Concannon, J. D.
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cooke, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Money, Ernle


Coombs, Derek
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cooper, A. E.
Horam, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles


Dalyell, Tam
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia
Murton, Oscar


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neave, Airey


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Normanton, Tom


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, David (Guildford)
O'Halloran, Michael


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Orme, Stanley


Dixon, Piers
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Drayson, G. B.
Iremonger, T.L.
Parkinson, Cecil




Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Waddington, David


Peel, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pendry, Tom
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Percival, Ian
Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Dame Irene


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Spearing, Nigel
Weatherill, Bernard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Speed, Keith
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Sproat, Iain
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Redmond, Robert
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Sutcliffe, John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Pees, Merlyn (Leeds, E.)
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs Margaret
Woof, Robert


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tilney, John
Worsley, Marcus


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Torney, Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rost, Peter
Trew, Peter



Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Mr. Hamish Grey.


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)

Question accordingly negatived.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalien): The next Amendment to be called is No. 15 standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), and it will be for the convenience of the Committee if the following Amendments are considered with it:

No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out 'So long as this section has effect' and insert:
'For a period of not longer than three months'.

No. 5, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'So long as this section has effect' and insert:
'For a period of not longer than three months'.

No. 7, in line 7, leave out 'So long as this section has effect' and insert:
'For a period of not longer than three months'.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast. East (Mr. McMaster),

No. 16, in line 32, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months' standing in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills).

No. 17, in page 2, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert:
'unless a resolution to continue it shall have been passed by both Houses of Parliament'.
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

No. 18, in page 2, leave out lines 34 to 40, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, and No. 19, in page 2, leave out lines 34 to 37, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Mr Mallalieu. A rather difficult point arises on this grouping of Amendments. You will notice that No. 15, No. 1, No. 5, No. 7 and No. 16 all refer collectively to the length of time during which the temporary powers should last. But I call your attention to the fact that No. 17, No. 18 and No. 19 refer to a quite different question, which is whether or not the Government should be able to extend the duration of the year's suspension by Order in Council or whether they should have to bring it to the House by an amendable piece of legislation. I think that these are two quite different questions of principle. Whether they should be debated together is arguable, but I think that at least they should have separate Divisions.

The Second Deputy Chairman: These matters were considered by the Chairman of Ways and Means, who considered that they are sufficiently related to be capable of profitable discussion together. The other Amendments were unfortunately not selected for Division.

Mr. Maude: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. It cannot be right, surely, that we should have a debate and a Division on how long these powers should last and should be prevented from dividing on what must obviously be perhaps the most important point which a Parliament can decide—whether the Government should extend powers they have taken without Parliament being able to debate and amend them. This is a different point and we must surely be allowed a Division on it.

The Second Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman will state precisely what Amendments he wishes to divide on, I


have no doubt that the Chairman will consider the matter. It is for the Chairman to decide.

Mr. Maude: I can do that right away. We could have a Division, if the Chair were willing, on No. 17, No. 18 or No. 19. They all refer to approximately the same point, and I think that a Division on one of them would meet my case.

The Second Deputy Chairman: That will certainly be put to the Chairman.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Since they are separate Amendments I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) says. I hope that my support for it might also be indicated to the Chairman. It is fair that two Divisions should be allowed.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 32, leave out 'one year' and insert 'six months'.
The purpose of the Amendment is to examine the length of time during which the interregnum is to take place, because interregnum is what it is. We are depriving the people of Northern Ireland of parliamentary government and we are substituting government by decree on a temporary basis.
The purpose is to determine what is in the Government's mind about the length of the interregnum. My right hon. Friend has been at pains to emphasise the temporary nature of the provisions of this Bill. We want to know roughly how temporary is "temporary".
Leading up to this Bill, we have had a very long period of uncertainty in Ulster. After the general talk about Government initiatives, a period of doubt was created, during which the forces of violence went to work in an ever-increasing way in order to influence the decision which might come out of any initiative. This Bill is almost enshrining the period of doubt and solidifying it into one year, unless we have an indication from the Government that one year is really the maximum and that there is hope for speedy action to remove the doubt.
There will be two results so long as this legislation remains on the Statute

Book. The first is that there will be appalling doubt and uncertainty in the minds of the majority and in the minds of all law-abiding people about what is to be the ultimate constitution. Is there likely to be any industrial investment, for example, while the system of Government is in doubt and while there is Government by decree under a temporary constitution?
The second result is that, during the period of the interregnum there will be every incentive to the practices of violence, in order to influence the ultimate decision.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State designate has had to leave us, though I understand why. But I wish to impress upon the Government the need for speed to bring this legislation to an end as soon as possible. Obviously the Government need time to get the solution right. However, I have described the Bill as a recipe for disaster: the longer that this legislation remains on the Statute Book, the more likely is the disaster to occur. Therefore, I suggest that the Government's first objective should be to get this legislation off the Statute Book and to get back to permanent legislation, whatever it be.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the sooner that all parties in Northern Ireland join the right hon. Gentleman on the Commission, the sooner it will be possible to get rid of this legislation?

Captain Orr: I am afraid that I do not agree at all. When we come to a later Amendment, I shall discuss the vice of setting up the Commission. We want to get back to parliamentary government. To give encouragement to the creature of the Minister, appointed and paid by the Minister, is to pay lip service to something that is not parliamentary government. Therefore, I do not concede the point.
If by co-operation we mean finding ways of giving the Secretary of State designate advice, that is a different matter. We would seek every possible way or channel open to us to give advice to the Minister. I hope that everybody of good will will give the Minister the maximum advice possible. He has had a fair amount of advice already tonight,


and I have no doubt that the Bill will bring upon him an absolute plethora of advice.

[Sir STEPHEN MCADDEN in the Chair]

11.30 p.m.

I suggest that the Government should not go on listening to advice for too long. Advice moves rapidly from reason to violence, and the longer the period the more and greater will be the danger of the escalation and the bidding and overbidding through violent methods, through demonstrations of force, and ultimately through the use of force.

I will content myself at this stage with introducing the subject simply so that we can get some inkling of what is in the Government's mind about the period and whether they are obsessed with a sense of urgency, because urgency there must be. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will have various views on the matter. I am therefore content to leave the matter there.

The Temporary Chairman: I should mention at this stage, concerning a query raised by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude), that I propose to call a Division, if necessary, on Amendment No. 17.

Mr. McMaster: I support the argument advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). However, I want to direct the attention of the Committee to Amendment No. 1, standing in my name, which seeks to insert, instead of a period of six months, a period of three months.
If the Bill is to produce any result at all in Northern Ireland it must be immediate. I feel that one of the saddest factors which has emerged in the last three or four days is that the violence, instead of coming to an end, as some who have been reading the popular Press on this side of the Irish Sea might think, has continued almost unabated.
Yesterday in Belfast there was a large explosion killing two people. On Saturday there were two heavy explosions in the centre of Bangor doing tremendous damage to the main street. Just over 24 hours ago there was an explosion on the Albert Bridge Road, in my constituency, blowing up a small draper's shop. Several people have been killed

over the past weekend. It appears clear that the hopes of those who welcome the Bill and the announcement of the new initiative last Friday are not being met.
It is clear from the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that, while he is prepared to welcome the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he still is not willing to give any assurance that he will sit down round a table and discuss the political initiatives which the Prime Minister mentioned in his statement and which were mentioned on Second Reading yesterday. I suggest that if there is no immediate result from the initiative which has been taken, as time passes a positive result will become less likely. If we are not going to have a successful result to this gamble—as many people call it—why prolong the agony for 12 months?
One of the most amazing features of this debate is the way in which more than 400 of my colleagues rushed through the Lobby to enable us to bring forward this legislation. There seems to have been a kind of mass hysteria. Do we want all the business to be bogged down, with endless debates on Ulster?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Far from rushing, it was with heavy hearts that all of us were obliged to go through the Lobby last night.

Mr. McMaster: I accept the point made by my hon. Friend. I do not pretend that hon. Members on either side of the Committee are treating this matter lightly but, considering the amount of business that we are transferring to the House, it is somewhat surprising that we should appear so anxious to give effect to the proposals contained in the Bill.
I therefore suggest that instead of having a mandatory period of 12 months we should provide for a shorter period, so that we can judge for ourselves. I suggest that it should not be even six months, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, but three months. That would be more realistic.
If there is no success; if the violence continues and, as some fear, escalates, if the S.D.L.P. and other members of the Opposition in Stormont do not show themselves prepared after three months


to sit round a table to discuss political initiatives, are they more likely to do so at the end of six months? I suggest that they are not. For those reasons I suggest that the Government should consider the Amendment seriously and see whether a shorter period would not be more appropriate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I agree that these Amendments raise one of the most important questions about the Bill, namely, precisely how temporary will this legislation be? I agree with my two hon. Friends about that, but in other respects I take an opposite view to theirs. In opposing the Amendment I say that my right hon. Friend will be extremely lucky to get away with this initiative in as short a time as 12 months. I accept his bona fides in bring forward this temporary legislation, providing for a period of 12 months, but I take a pessimistic view of the situation and foresee that the House is likely to find itself following the unfortunate precedent of other legislation of this kind in the past in that for periods of 12 months after 12 months, for some time to come, we shall be renewing these powers and considering possible solutions to the Irish problem, and how to advance from our present position. My Ulster Unionist Friends may assure me that I am being unduly pessimistic, but I take the view that in considering how long the present situation will continue the important factor is that if the Committee is to decide when the present position will end it must examine generally how it sees the position coming to an end. At what destination shall we aim, once we have set forth on this line of action?
I have the feeling that when we took the decision yesterday we were to some extent going into a tunnel. Having listened to most of the debates that have taken place since we started considering this legislation yesterday, I am driven to the conclusion that so far we have not seen the light at the other end of the tunnel.
I agree with one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). Yesterday 483 hon. Members voted for the Bill in the hope, a hope and optimism which I share, that this initiative might produce some break through from the appalling position we are in. I doubt very much whether that

483 had any common idea of the purposes and aim of what they were voting for. I agree that we must not speculate about the future too closely or go in for fanciful forecasting in a field where forecasting of any kind is silly. I accept that the purpose is to create a new situation, to "break the mould" as was said, in the hope that in the next few months we can see a solution.
Nevertheless, many of my hon. Friends have coupled with what we are doing the need for rapid progress and for the Government to take advantage of the initiative which they have won to take radical measures in Northern Ireland. In which direction is it intended that the Government should act speedily? If the present legislation cannot produce a permanent solution, the Committee has to consider what is being aimed at, even if they do not set too hard and fast a deadline to aim at. Practically every solution suggested by Ulster hon. Members on both sides is unthinkable in the short term. That is depressing. The view expressed in this House probably reflects the position in Ulster that the mood of reconciliation and compromise is completely—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think that he is getting wide of the Amendment, which is strictly related to a period of time.

Mr. Clarke: I accept what you say, Sir Stephen, and I shall relate what I am saying to considering how long this legislation is to go on and how it should come to an end. Every destination indicated by Ulster hon. Members and the conclusions which they have envisaged in speeches so far will certainly not be achieved in the next six or 12 months. There has been no indication from Unionists or Opposition hon. Members of any solution to the present impasse which could be achieved in anything under 12 months.
I do not want to be critical of them because I realise the very grave feelings of Unionist hon. Members and sympathise with the unfortunate position they are in, but I regret that in the short term after the initiative which has been taken so far as their position can be understood, they are envisaging a return to the Stormont


position. If I understand the position of Mr. Faulkner and certainly of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East, they envisage a sort of committee as a short-term solution with a fairly rapid return to the kind of representative government which they had in the past.

Captain Orr: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: Interesting as this speculation may be, it is not related strictly to this Amendment, which is how long this position should go on, for one year or six months.

Mr. Clarke: I shall get back in order, if I may, before giving way to my hon. and gallant Friend. With great respect, if the Committee is being asked to consider the end of legislation in three or six months, the way in which an hon. Member envisages it coming to an end in six months is highly relevant.

Captain Orr: In which case my intervention, I hope, will also be relevant. I said nothing in introducing the Amendment about what might be put in place of this Bill. All I said was that it is extraordinarily dangerous to leave any community without parliamentary government whether it be parliamentary government from this House or in a local parliament at Stormont.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that only in the direst situation would any hon. Member support a Measure of this kind which suspends the only form of parliamentary democracy which Ulster has at present. If there is a demand from our Unionist colleagues that this suspension be brought to an end in as short a time as six months, the duty falls upon Mr. Faulkner and the Unionist Party to give some firm indication of how they expect this initiative to succeed and to give leadership to the people of Ulster with a view to bringing about an improvement in the situation.
I believe that at the end of six months or 12 months, whatever else we bring back we will not bring back Stormont as we have known it. Stormont as we knew it is dead. I say this without intending the slightest criticism of Unionist Members, who clearly greatly regret the passing of the system to which they have devoted so much attention and care, but hoping that the leadership that Ulster

will get will be moderate Unionist leadership.
My hope is that the Unionist Party will rise to the occasion and be ready to act when this legislation is brought to an end, instead of leaving the initiative entirely to Mr. Craig, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and the people on the other side who in the last few days, to my great concern, have seemed to an outside observer who has not been in Ulster to be taking the initiative from the Unionists, which I am sure was never the intention of my right hon. Friend, nor is it my intention in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I am listening with great attention to what my hon. Friend is saying. He has said that he wishes to see moderate leadership in Ulster from the Unionist Party. If he wishes to see that, will he tell me what he thinks he has seen from the last three Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We have seen moderate leadership from certainly some of the last three Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland—probably not so much from the last one as some of the others. [Interruption.] I have no intention of rousing the ire of my hon. Friends. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman now realises how important it was when I urged him to keep to the strict question of time rather than to the question of leadership.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I have been called to order, I feel that I should not give way straight away. I will emphasise my point. If I spoke harshly and annoyed any of my Ulster hon. Friends about their present leadership, it was relevant in this way. I am sorry if my criticism of Mr. Faulkner was found offensive. If Mr. Faulkner is to win back my confidence, and if the Unionist Party is to persuade me in these Amendments that this situation can be brought to an end rapidly, Mr. Faulkner will not have to behave as he has behaved in the last two or three days. I make all concessions for the pressure of events over the last two or three days. It is my earnest wish that, if we are to have this present


position and this initiative leading anywhere, Mr. Faulkner and the Unionist Party will give their attention to what they propose to bring back in replacement of Stormont within the period of time.

Mr. McMaster: I do not agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the last Prime Minister, but I suggest that that issue is irrelevant. If we were to back Stormont, all that we would be handing back would be to an elected legislative assembly. Even if Northern Ireland elected a Communist Government of whom we disapproved, we could not interfere with them on this ground. Surely we would have a democratically elected assembly on one man, one vote, and that is all we can do in the British House of Commons.

Mr. Clarke: I suspect that if I replied to that, as I should very much like to, I would be completely out of order as I was when I touched on the subject a moment ago and that, having provoked such reactions, my speech has been diverted into other points.
The timing of this initiative depends on the production by people from Northern Ireland of some replacement for the Bill, which we all regard as a temporary expedient. Until there is a replacement which will be acceptable to the people as a whole in Northern Ireland it is clear that these powers will have to be continued. Any suggestions therefore of the return of Stormont in its old form are unrealistic. To suggest as an alternative that a united Ireland will be some kind of alternative for the near future, let alone for the next six or 12 months, is to live in cloud cuckoo land. The idea that the Bill could be replaced by total integration with Britain in the next six or twelve months is fanciful. There is no way at the moment of taking integration within the United Kingdom further than is envisaged in the Bill. Almost certainly any steps in that direction would simply lose all the confidence of moderate Catholic opinion that we are so desperately trying "to win with the initiative.
I am trying to stimulate some indication from the Committee of how in the next 12 months a new form of devolved Government can be developed in Northern Ireland. There must be some

idea at the back of the Government's mind towards which it is working. I am quite sure at this stage that the last thing the Government want is to be drawn on this kind of subject.
I hope we can consider for how long we are going to have these powers and that the Government and hon. Members will begin to concentrate their minds on precisely what should replace them in what we hope will be a comparatively short time.
I hope that at the back of our minds is the idea of some form of elected representative body. No one wants suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament to last for a moment longer than necessary. But when it returns it will not be Stormont as we have known it. It will have to be based on some form of proportional representation to cover a wider range of opinion in Northern Ireland. These are matters that may be more properly discussed on other occasions rather than now when we are considering the timing of the Bill and the length of time the powers will last. We must consider what form of Government we should adopt to give the minority a wider expression of opinion and the opportunity to participate in the Government of the province.
In opposing the Amendments I am convinced that any reduction in the 12-month period is fanciful and unrealistic and the House of Commons must steel itself to what it has brought upon itself. We will have direct responsibility for Ulster affairs in this House for considerably longer than the next year.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: As seconder of Amendment No. 15, I need not speak for more than a few moments because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has admirably deployed the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) used the phrase "breaking the mould" to describe the effect of the initiative taken by Her Majesty's Government. I only hope that the result of breaking the mould will not be to place our soldiers in Northern Ireland between two fires. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe rightly said that we should not look for a political solution within 12 months. But what concerns some of my hon. Friends and


myself is that the Bill may be unlikely to produce a political solution and, indeed, may make a political solution more difficult.
My hon. Friend appealed for moderate leadership from the Unionists at this time. But the whole effect of this has been to drive people to extremes in Northern Ireland. That is why my hon. Friend has been disappointed in Mr. Faulkner in the last few days. What other attitude could Mr. Faulkner take in this situation, in which he has been placed by the action of Her Majesty's Government? How else can he hope to keep any control of the Unionist forces? How else can he hope to rally the moderate Unionist forces?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I fear that my hon. Friend has misunderstood my point. The point I should like him to deal with is why has not the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—I regret that he is not in the Chamber—taken the view which my hon. Friend was saying was forced upon the Unionists? When I listen to the hon. Member for Antrim, North denouncing Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Craig for their reaction to the Bill, how I wish that one of my Unionist colleagues in the Committee had been making a similar speech to him. The reaction of the hon. Member for Antrim, North in denouncing this Unionist reaction, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) says is inevitable, indicates that a bolder and less extreme reaction might have been possible.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: My impression has been that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is quite capable of looking after himself, and that it is not for me to answer for him. If my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe will look in Vacher's Parliamentary Companion, he will find against his own name the letter "U". He must not try to distinguish himself from the Unionists. He is, as I am, a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party. I do not know what is in his mind this evening. Perhaps it is because the hour is late. Anyway, it was deplorable to hear these sneers against Mr. Brian Faulkner. My hon. Friend said that he distinguished Mr. Faulkner from his two predecessors as Prime Minister of

Northern Ireland and suggested that whereas they were good reformers he is some kind of benighted reactionary. Has my hon. Friend read Mr. Faulkner's Green Paper? My hon. Friend rightly said that Stormont will not be restored as it was and that Mr. Faulkner did not want—

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: rose—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am not giving way.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I may be deflected, and may stray far from the rules of order—[Interruption.] I am answering what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. It is not the case that Mr. Faulkner, or, as far as I know, any hon. Member of the House of Commons, is calling for the restoration after six months or a year—dependent on whether one supports the Amendment—of Stormont exactly as it was. It was never Mr. Faulkner's intention that Stormont should go on as it was.
My hon. Friend mentioned proportional representation. That is in the Green Paper.

12 midnight.

Sir Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. I hesitate to intervene in the tête à tête between hon. Members opposite, but if the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) would acknowledge the existence of the Opposition in this debate and would address the Chair instead of confining his confidential exchanges to his colleagues, we might get on much better.

The Temporary Chairman: It is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that remarks in the Committee should be addressed to the Chair and not to anyone else. May I remind the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that I attempted to remind the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) that he was getting out of order. I am afraid that in attempting to pursue the arguments of the hon. Member for Rushcliffe, the hon. Member for Chigwell is now getting himself


out of order as well. I should be grateful if he would keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I will cease to pursue my hon. Friend, but as I was chided by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for ignoring the existence of Her Majesty's Opposition, I will now give way to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead).

Mr. Whitehead: I was about to ask the hon. Member whether he recollects the resignation of Mr. Faulkner from the O'Neill Cabinet and the reasons for it.

The Temporary Chairman: I am not sure that is relevant to the present discussion.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Indeed, Sir Stephen, and it would be going too far to go back in time as far as that.
I will conclude with these brief remarks. Reference was made to the enormous majority on the Second Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said that many of his hon. Friends and mine did not know what they were in for when they voted on Second Reading. That may or may not be true. What is true is that these debates have been extremely instructive. Hon. Members are getting an inkling of the burden which will be thrust upon them if this Bill is enacted. The already congested parliamentary programme will be further choked. There is bound to be a burgeoning of bureaucracy. This is what will result from the Bill which, if enacted, should be brought to an end as quickly as possible. This is why the Amendment suggests halving the period from a year to six months. It is essential that regional self-government through a regional representative assembly should be restored in Northern Ireland at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Antony Buck: Whenever one begins to debate Irish affairs, one always seems to get bogged down in the past. I hope that this will not happen in the discussions on this Amendment. We are now considering what will happen in the next six months or so, and it does not help to have any form of recrimination about people's reputations in the past.
What has stunned me about the present initiative and the time span involved is that some of my hon. Friends have suggested that what has happened has meant the loss of some of the centre ground. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) for whom I have great admiration, has made this point in the past, and it is important that the centre ground should not be lost and that we should look to our hon. Friends from the Conservative and Unionist Party to help to win back that centre ground in the coming months. They will be very much assisted by Mr. Faulkner, for whom I have profound admiration.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) on reflection perhaps will wish he had not cast a slight slur on the Prime Minister of Ulster, because Mr. Faulkner has exercised a moderating influence on the situation and will in the coming months be capable of playing a major part in the affairs of Ulster. So I hope and pray.
If my hon. Friends are right and part of the centre ground has been lost or could have been, it may take some time to win that back and it would be a mistake to suggest that this initiative must be confined to three or six months. Let us not shackle our new team, taking over responsibility in this difficult situation, to a time limit of months. Let us give them sufficient time. If anyone thinks that my right hon. Friend and his team are dragging their feet it will be open for them to raise the matter in the House. I hope it will be thought right to give the Secretary of State designate ample time to proceed with the initiative and ample time to win back the centre ground, if it has been lost.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Both on Second Reading and today this Bill has been dealt with with a delicacy which is a tribute to the House and the Committee. That earnest desire for a delicacy of approach has been manifested tonight and that is why it would be unwise to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Maude: I hope my hon. Friend realises that we are dealing with two quite separate sets of Amendments. No doubt he is addressing himself to those


dealing with the time-span of the present legislation. The method by which this can be extended is being debated in this and that is why it would be unwise to accept these Amendments.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I accept his argument and say that I wish to adhere to what has been so far dealt with, namely the time factor plus some related arguments. One point that has emerged in our discussion on the duration of these new powers is the point made by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) that we should have an open mind in approaching the implications of the legislation and the one-year period that is subsumed in this Clause. The vital key to all this is that both Members of the House and external opinion in Britain and Northern Ireland should approach the matter with an open mind. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) referred to the symbolic importance of the period being a shorter one. It is important for us to accept the proposition with an open mind which would allow optimal political decisions to be reached at the end of this period. It is important too to relate the wish for objectivity which has been lacking in the Northern Ireland scenario to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe mentioned when he expressed the disappointment felt by the acceptance of the Government's radical and in some ways unwelcome proposals and the painful manner in which they have been accepted by the House.
Dealing with what my hon. Friend said about Mr. Brian Falkner, I thought that many hon. Members must have misunderstood what my hon. Friend was trying to get at, unless I have misheard him. That was, not that Mr. Faulkner himself, in any personal terms had proved to be deficient, but that he had proved to be deficient within the political context of what had happened in Northern Ireland. While his predecessors had appeared to be trying to make the necessary arrangements to achieve solutions to these problems, Mr. Faulkner because of the onrush of circumstances, had increasingly found himself personally tied to a more and more ossified situation.
That is why, coming back to the time period in the Amendment, one feels that if the Amendment were accepted, it would do damage to the concept subsumed in the original Clause. It would undermine the delicate and in many ways still feeble initiative which one hopes, with growing confidence, will be successful one way or another.
Whatever the structural outcome of the period of one year, and whether it will be successful, whatever one's view, we would not wish to undermine confidence in the difficult and delicate new task to be vested in the Secretary of State designate, by accepting a situation which would confuse the situation even more.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Before calling the next hon. Member, I would remind hon. Members that we are discussing, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has pointed out, not only the time schedule of six or 12 months, but the question of further continuance. No one has so far spoken much on the second group, but those are the two subjects, and I should not like the debate to be extended into other subjects.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Sir Stephen. I am grateful to you for that, but it would be for the convenience of the Committee if those who wish to speak on the second group would perhaps not seek to catch your eye until those hon. Members who wish to speak on the first group have deal with the question of time.

The Temporary Chairman: That is up to individual Members. I have no means of knowing on which section hon. Members wish to speak, but if they will take the hint given by the hon. Gentleman, and if hon. Members who wish to speak on timing, whether six or 12 months, will rise first, then we can call other Members.

Mr. Molyneaux: I shall stick closely to the problem of the time period and put forward a valid reason for the Amendment which hon. Members of the Committee could not be expected to be aware of.
The Measure which is completely to change the local government system in Northern Ireland had practically completed its course to the Statute Book in


Stormont. It was not part of the reform package, although it has sometimes been regarded as such.
It started on its course early in 1967, long before we heard of civil rights and all the commotion which followed from that. Those changes are designed to remove from local councils practically all the important functions of local goveernment as we have known them and to transfer them to Stormont. Whether hon. Members here like it or not, all these vital details will come to the Floor of this House. There is no way of avoiding it because they were going to be dealt with by Stormont and, now that Stormont has gone, they have to be dealt with somewhere, by some legislative body and that has to be Westminster. So it is not a question of generally directing local government policy either by the Secretary of State designate and his colleagues or by anybody else in this Committee. It has to be dealt with in detail, in the detail with which it would be dealt with in the town halls.
12.15 a.m.
I am sorry to have to warn the Committee of it, but there is simply no escape from that. I have noticed a tendency here tonight to back away from this challenge. That simply will not do, because local government elections for the new councils will be held this autumn and arrangements for them are already in train. It is essential that there should be established the relationship between the new councils and some legislative body; that relationship cannot be left in mid air but must be brought into effect by October. That is why I feel very strongly that this period of uncertainty cannot be prolonged, and I feel that one year is far too long.
There is another intricate matter which I shall not enter upon at length now but which will cause some head scratching for the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Mr. Frank Marsden: Naively, perhaps, I thought that, apart from the question of security, one of the purposes of this Bill was to give people in Northern Ireland a breathing space in which they could talk to one another and perhaps arrange a package

deal acceptable to both sides. Is the hon. Member suggesting that that can be done in six months?

Mr. Molyneaux: I can well understand the hon. Member's feeling of innocence because I thought that that was the feeling generally last night among many Members who are now, I think, beginning to wake up to the consequences of last night's action. There is no question of our trying to suggest that a mistake has been made; it is not a question of arguing that point: I am simply trying to bring home to the Committee the serious complications which will ensue.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would my hon. Friend not agree that in Northern Ireland housing is a very important factor which is of concern and has caused difficulty to all sections of the community and has been taken over entirely by a Government-sponsored body known as the Housing Executive; that all questions relating to housing in Northern Ireland now go to the Stormont Minister for Development, and that now, because of this Bill, this Parliament will have to deal with all those housing questions?

Mr. Molyneaux: Yes. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. In his Stormont constituency of Burnside he passed on to the Minister for Development complaints about housing; he will now have to bring those complaints here. There is no escaping that.
The other point I wanted to mention is an even more difficult one, that of the borrowing powers of local government authorities in Northern Ireland. Their borrowing powers are basedon their being rating authorities, but rating powers were to be taken over by Stormont. We here are taking over the functions of Stormont. Presumably we shall have to find the money and be concerned not only with providing for their borrowing in the future but with the liabilities for all the moneys borrowed in the past by all the authorities in Northern Ireland. Members of this Committee might possibly turn over in their minds the possibility of changing the local government system to that which, I understand, is to be foisted on the people of England. I would not admit that it would be superior to what we are to bring in in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The Committee should be aware that there is a very large number of people in local government in Northern Ireland who feel very strongly about the system that was about to be introduced in Northern Ireland and who will now, as soon as the Secretary of State-designate has taken office, wish to see him with a view to bringing to his notice a system of local government far more akin to the English system than that which was about to be introduced in Stormont.

Mr. Molyneaux: I agree with my hon. Friend. Although I was losing my seat as a county councillor, I was forced to admit that we were achieving great improvements in the work we had been trying to do to change the system of local government. I hope that we shall sort something out, and that the people will not suffer as a result.

Mr. McGuire: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is not over-egging the pudding. In Derry—Londonderry to some, but Derry to me—the corporation was abolished and we had a commission carrying out the work of local government. Are we not to have a commission here, which will do something similar on a biggerbase—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. I was about to tell the hon. Gentleman that he was going out of order. If he follows the path followed by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), I am sure he will be out of order.

Mr. Raison: I believe we need the Bill because we need time to build up a climate in which tensions can be dissolved and we can move forward. But it is vital that the words
temporary provision
in the Title should mean what they say. This is partly for the reason I advanced in an earlier debate that the prospect of suspending parliamentary powers in part of our nation is distasteful. But I believe it is also so for two other reasons. One is rather selfish. The prospect of taking direct control of Northern Ireland is full of hazards for us. It is a very heavy responsibility, and it will mean much hardship. But that is the minor reason, because there is obviously a much more important reason, that the Irish problem

will be solved only by the Irish themselves. We have a rôle. The purpose of the Bill is to try to bring about a situation in which that can happen, in which the Irish can get into a better position to face up to the problems before them. But essentially it is they, the Northern Irish and the Southern Irish, who will decide whether or not they will live in peace or enmity.
If we take the view, if we accept that it is the Irish who will make the crucial decisions, who will achieve the sort of society we want, it must be the elected representatives of the Irish people, North as well as South, who play a major part.

Mr. McManus: Would not it appear to the hon. Gentleman that as a logical consequence of his remarks, which are tending to lead in a useful direction in my view, since he says that it is up to the Irish themselves to solve their own affairs, it is up to the British Government to facilitate that evolution by declaring that the Irish have a right to solve their own problems without interference from an outside power?

Mr. Raison: The complication is that within the Irish there are to be found two nations, separated by a divide which is not just a line on a map but a deep cultural divide as well. We cannot realistically say there is one nation. If we look at the matter realistically in terms of the culture, traditions and attitudes of the people of North and South, we are bound to acknowledge that there is a very big difference between the two.
If the essential decisions are to spring from the Irish people North and the Irish people South, there must be in being a Government that truly represents the people of the North. It is not within the power of the Westminster Government in the long term to make decisions on be-half of those people. There must be a deep sense of commitment on the part of the people of Northern Ireland to whatever outcome there may be to this question. I am not saying what the long-term outcome will be. I can conceive that there will one day be union with Ireland or a tighter union of Britain and Northern Ireland. I do not know what the ultimate answer will be. I stand by the position that nothing must happen to the North


unless it is with the consent of the majority of its people.
It is vitally important to reconstitute a valid Northern Irish Government as soon as possible. Whether it can be exactly the Stormont model or whether there can be a new more deeply community based and more acceptable Northern Irish Government is the crux of this period of direct rule. The object of taking over the rule of Northern Ireland is to try to build up a valid, more acceptable, more community based Government than there has been in the past. I do not want to run down the achievements of Stormont; it has things to its credit; but we must be realistic and see that Stormont has not had the degree of acceptance within the community as a whole which would allow us to say that it should go on as it has in the past. We must build something new.
It is unrealistic to suppose that we can bring about this substantial achievement in three months or six months; therefore the Amendments which are designed to limit the period are unrealistic. On the other hand, 12 months represents a reasonable first stopping point to allow us to ask ourselves what has happened and whether we want the system to go on. I am wholly against what is described as a temporary provision becoming a permanent provision. After a period of 12 months we should give serious consideration to what happens next.
I cannot believe that 1½ hours' discussion, which is what is allowed under the Order in Council procedure, is right. At the very least I ask for an undertaking that when the 12 months elapses we shall have a much more prolonged and full examination than is embodied in the simple business of passing an order. We must have the right to look at the whole question in great depth.
I am initially attracted to Amendment No. 17, which provides that there must be a Resolution of both Houses of Parliament for these powers to be continued. I want to know what that means and whether such a Resolution gives the opportunity for a fuller debate than the Order-in-Council procedure postulated in the Bill.
It is important for us to have a clear undertaking that when the 12 months

elapses there will be deep and full consideration of what should happen next, rather than a cursory 1½ hour debate of the kind we have when we are discussing quite important questions such as the renewal of Rhodesian sanctions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 17 standing in my name. The purpose of the Amendment is to take the initiative out of the hands of the Executive and leave it fairly and squarely on the Floor of the House of Commons. The Bill puts into the hands of the Executive a tremendous power. The trouble in parliamentary life today is that the Executive has too much power. I, as a Member of the House of Commons, would like to prune some of that power and get it back into the hands of ordinary Members of Parliament.
12.30 a.m.
But by this Bill we are giving to the Secretary of State tremendous powers. He will have power to bring in a provision whereby we will lengthen his period of office by one year. This will be done by Order in Council. The initiative will rest with him. He will decide when it shall be discussed. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) points out that there is a time limit of 1½ hours on debates on orders. So, at the end of the 12 months, instead of our being able to go over this Bill again, to discuss it thoroughly as it will need to be discussed if it is to be reintroduced, we shall have only 1½ hours in which to say "Yes". Bearing in mind that the Bill will have an even greater significance after we survey the year's legislation and Orders in Council under it, we will have only 1½ hours in which to say to the Government, "All right! You can carry on along the same lines."

Mr. McGuire: I am sure that the 1½ hours to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the time in which to discuss orders which the Secretary of State presumably will bring before the House. If the Bill is only for a period of 12 months, surely it must follow that if we are asked to extend it—that is, not resuscitate the Stormont Parliament but prolong the agony for another 12 months—we shall have another Bill by which to do it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman has not read the Bill. If he had, he


would be with me in my argument, for what he has just said is really the argument I am making. I say that at the end of the 12 months we should be able to have a new Bill or discuss this Bill again in full detail, going through the three usual stages. But according to Clause 1(5)—
…at any time before the expiry of this section. Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that it shall continue in force for a further period of one year…".
That, in my opinion, is iniquitous. It would be iniquitous for the House to give any such power to the Executive on such an important Bill.
I think that hon. Members are beginning to learn what they are taking on, and when they see the first list of Questions which will go down on the Order Paper to the Secretary of State, they will learn even more. I think the ghosts of the old Irish Nationalist Members and the old Unionist Members are haunting this Chamber tonight. Instead of being ghosts, indeed, they will be reincarnated before this problem is off the hands of the House of Commons.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I hesitate to interfere in what has become a family dispute among hon. Members opposite, but in considering these time Amendments I am bound to say that I am personally more in sympathy with what has been said by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) than with any other hon. Member who has spoken in this debate. That is not merely a reflection on our professional link which apparently exists.
It seems to me that one year is a reasonable period in the circumstances with which we are dealing. Indeed, so far from thinking that the period of time contemplated in the Bill, on one view of Clause 1(5), is too long, I think it may well prove to be too short a time for unravelling the web of the Irish problem.
The suggestions that a six-month period or a three-month period is adequate is totally unrealistic, in view of the situation in Northern Ireland. I cannot claim any expertise about Northern Ireland, save that I have the privilege of being a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland. But it is painfully clear that the situation there has not been susceptible of easy solution for three centuries past. The

task of reconciliation is as difficult now as it has ever been, if not more so. Accordingly, the time contemplated for the immediate grant of these powers seems a reasonable one in the circumstances.
However, I come to Amendment No. 17. A question appears to arise on the meaning and construction of subsection (5) and the words:
…but, at any time before the expiry of this section, Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that it shall continue in force for a further period of one year…
Do those words set a limit of two years on the operation of this legislation, namely, the one year in the first instance with which we are dealing immediately, and then one year in addition? Alternatively, is the formula one Act for an extension of the power each year for a term of 12 months? Perhaps we may have some guidance on that.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Cognate with the important question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put about the interpretation of subsection (5), does he also agree that whichever may be the correct interpretation, namely, whether this is a once-for-all renewal or a renewable one, it is questionable whether it is wise that the renewal can be only for one year, no less and no more, and that it might in the circumstances appear desirable that the renewal should be for either a less or a longer period? Therefore, is not it foolish for us to prescribe the renewal period?

Sir Elwyn Jones: That is a very interesting suggestion. I conceive of a situation arising that if in the course of a given year when these powers are being exercised the Government of the day decide that they want the powers no longer and make new arrangements, then by fresh legislation it will be open to them to terminate the period of the exercise of the powers. But these are questions to be answered by the Treasury Bench and not me. But it is an interesting point of some importance.
The consequence of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would be one that he would not welcome. If his Amendment were accepted and there was a Resolution to continue the Act passed


by both Houses of Parliament, he sets no time limit on it at all—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely it could be rescinded at any time.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It does not provide for that in the Amendment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not contemplate that. But this may be a lawyer's point, and I shall not dwell upon it. At any rate, that would be the effect of his Amendment.
There has been a little misconception in the debate about the procedure which is contemplated in the event of a renewal of the powers being sought by the Government by Order in Council.
It is clear from the proviso to subsection (5) that it is not a one and a half hour debate that is contemplated. The words are:
Provided that Her Majesty shall not be recommended to make an Order under this subsection unless a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
I understand that to be a procedure which is not brought in at 10 o'clock at night, but one which would involve, I imagine and think, a full day's debate. It is rather different from the procedure which is moved at 10 o'clock to prevent an Order in Council lapsing at the conclusion of a 40-day period. That is my understanding of the matter. However, perhaps we may have some enlightenment upon it from the Government.
I should certainly agree that if what is contemplated is merely an hour and a half debate on an Order in Council for the renewal of these powers, that would be quite unacceptable and intolerable. However, I do not believe that that is what the proviso means or that that is what is contemplated. Accordingly, we on this side of the Committee, will not be supporting the Amendments.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): I hope that the Committee will not think me discourteous in intervening at this stage. Like my right hon. Friend on an earlier occasion, I intervene now to try to answer the points which have been raised so far. I hope that the Committee will feel able to come to a decision on the matter in the not too distant future in view of the important Amend-

ments which still confront us and the late hour which we have already reached.
This is the first occasion on which I have spoken about Northern Ireland. However, from the remarks made by hon. Members I shall not be short of work in future.
I should like to mention one preliminary point in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I assure him, as did my right hon. Friend, that it is our intention to be of whatever service we can to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in dealing with important constituency matters which they wish to raise. I hope that no hon. Member will have the slightest hesitation in approaching us if he thinks that we can be of assistance. I also note what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
I have certainly found this an extremely interesting and important occasion. The debate has been valuable to me, and I think that many hon. Members have said how important and valuable it has been to them.
I will deal, first, with the more limited Amendment No. 15 of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), which relates to the duration of the Act. I will also refer to the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), which proposes an even more restricted time limit, because it would be three months shorter than the proposal put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South.
I assure the Committee that, as events and my right hon. Friend's attitude have shown, we are all of us naturally obsessed with the sense of urgency in this problem. My right hon. Friend is only too anxious, since the grave decision to take these powers, to get on with the crucial and urgent job which he has been given. The Committee will have observed from his remarks today and yesterday on Second Reading how deeply obsessed he is with the sense of urgency and importance of the task which has been put upon his shoulders,
The powers which the House of Commons and another place, if they agree to pass the Bill, will confer upon my right hon. Friend are very grave and


serious. Naturally, he would not wish to have these powers vested in him for a day longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of the task that has been set upon his shoulders.
12.45 a.m.
I must, however, ask the Committee to face the facts of the present situation. I ask whether it is realistic to imagine that my right hon. Friend is likely, at the conclusion of either three months or six months, to be able to ask the House to agree that these powers should be removed. If he were to be in such a happy situation that an agreed solution had been arrived at during that period, legislation to repeal these provisions would be passed by acclamation by the House. But it is only reasonable that my right hon. Friend should have the powers for a year. A year gives him the minimum period of flexibility to carry out what has been proved increasingly clearly to be a very difficult task—a task that will consume a great deal of time.
I understand the feelings of my hon. Friends, one of whom would like a period of three months and the other a period of six months, but it would not be fair to my right hon. Friend to imagine that he would be in a position to be able to fulfil his task in less than 12 months. If he were in such a position no one would be more pleased than my right hon. Friend. I ask my hon. Friends to allow my right hon. Friend to have these powers for 12 months, on the undertaking that I give—which is hardly necessary, because he has shown it already—that my right hon. Friend has every intention to pursue this task with all the force and energy at his disposal—and the Committee will agree that they are not inconsiderable. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be allowed the powers for the 12 months that the House allowed in the Second Reading debate.
I now want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), which, in a way, is connected with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) referred earlier. I hesitate to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman legal advice, but I am advised that as the Bill is worded

the powers contained in the subsection will expire after one year from the Bill's enactment, unless it is provided by Order in Council that the subsection shall continue in force for a further year, and so on from year to year. That is how the subsection is worded.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I do not think that it is worded like that; that is the construction.

Mr. Channon: It is not worded like that, but that is the effect of the subsection. That deals with the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Whether or not it will be renewed for a second time I do not know, but the House would be chary of renewing it in such a way as to allow it to proceed year by year. It would not be my right hon. Friend's wish to have these powers for one day longer than he needs.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is this the language used in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act? Perhaps that could be checked. If so, it would be some confirmation that the construction is that which the Committee has been invited to accept, but in the words used in the subsection the construction is not an obvious one.

Mr. Channon: I shall seek advice on the wording of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, but I am advised that the construction that should be placed on the subsection is the one that I have stated.
I want to deal with the substantial point concerning what would happen if the House were to be asked to renew this legislation again by order. Naturally, none of us hopes that such a situation will occur, but no one can foresee with confidence just how the situation will develop in the next few months.
In 12 months' time, let us hope, a Bill embodying permanent constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland, secured perhaps after protracted negotiations with all the interested parties, may be passing through the House. It would be wrong to remove the power that the House would have to renew my right hon. Friend's powers by order for a further order, because we could easily fall into a position where we would be be-between two stools, a situation near the


end of successful—let us hope—negotiations, just at the time when the Measure was coming forward for renewal. It would be wrong to remove the powers which the House has given to renew the Measure by order rather than by legislation.
Since the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me the specific question, this Bill does not follow the wording of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act because that Act is not renewed by Order in Council. I am further advised that the advice which I have given about the effect of subsection (5) is accurate. What I must and can do is to say that I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who have spoken in this debate that it would be utterly intolerable, and we hope it would not happen, that if a further order had to be made to continue the Act for another 12 months the House would be expected to deal with that in an hour and a half debate.
That would be a ridiculous situation. In the absence of my right hon. Friend who has been Leader of the House, although I have discussed the Amendment with him, I can say that if such a grave step were taken—it would be a grave step, not a light matter—if there were a further order the House would have a full opportunity for debate. It would be quite impossible to ask the House to deal with these matters in a limited period such as one and a half hours.
That is not in the mind of the Government and evidence that it is unlikely to be in their mind is given by the Amendments referring to the affirmative Resolution procedure about which a forcible point was made yesterday. I think the Committee will agree that this is an indication that the Government have no wish to derogate from the rights of the House in this matter. My right hon. Friend has made clear that he deems himself responsible to this House and would be primarily responsible if the grave decision were taken to renew the Act by further order. Naturally, time would have to be given for a debate.
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North deals with renewal by Resolution of both Houses rather than by Order in Council. I must confirm that the effect of that

Amendment, although I dare say it is not the intention, would be to make the Bill permanent provided that a Resolution was passed by both Houses to have effect in the next 12 months. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish to support that proposition.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In the Resolution would not the House of Commons determine the time that the Measure would remain in operation?

Mr. Channon: It would be possible to deal with these matters along some such lines, but the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, though I am sure that this is not its intended effect, would have the effect that I have advised the Committee that it would have. I do not wish to stand upon the fact that the Amendment is defective. It is very difficult to get Amendments tabled by private Members drafted correctly. The Committee is well aware of the hon. Gentleman's intention.
I believe that it is proper for the renewal of a Bill of this kind, if it should take place, to be continued by a legal instrument, subject to parliamentary procedure, rather than by a simple Resolution in the way the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I have undertaken to the Committee that, if such a decision were to be taken, there would be adequate time for debate at an hour which hon. Members would consider to be proper.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West raised the important point whether any such order would limit the period of time to one year and not some lesser time as he had in mind. As the Bill is worded, subsection (5) would have the effect that the powers would be continued for a year. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree with me about the realities. Were there to be a solution agreed by the majority of people in Northern Ireland that came before the House of Commons, of course it is likely that legislation would be required. In such circumstances, it would be possible to relinquish the period of one year and have a lesser period if that were thought appropriate by Parliament.

Mr. McMaster: Does not my hon. Friend see the strength of the argument? The whole history of these events in Northern Ireland shows that regrettably


as the year ends violence instead of falling will tend to escalate. Would it not be better to have a shorter period which could be lengthened, rather than to have a 12-month period, when the matter could go from bad to worse?

Mr. Channon: I understand and appreciate my hon. Friend's sentiments. He has argued a slightly different point in his Amendment. It is not unreasonable for the Committee to decide that these powers should last for one year. If we are likely to reach a position where there is a change in these arrangements or if a solution is found, the powers could be removed in the legislation, if there were legislation—it seems likely that legislation would be needed—dealing with the solution. In that legislation it would be possible to reduce the period from one year to whatever period was thought to be proper by the House of Commons at that time. I understand the very interesting point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East. In practice this will not present the House of Commons with a problem, if it is faced in the future with the painful decision of having to renew the Bill by order.
In asking the Committee to agree to this portion of the Bill, and by asking the House of Commons to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Government accept that they are asking from the House of Commons very serious, indeed grave, powers. Those powers are not asked for lightly. They are asked for because rightly or wrongly the decision has been reached that such action is necessary. These powers will be used with the very greatest urgency by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, he is anxious to go to Northern Ireland as soon as the House of Commons and another place allow him to do so. It is not my right hon. Friend's wish to retain the powers for a day longer than he has to. I very much hope that we do not have to renew them by order.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Fitt: Can I take it that in his concluding remarks the hon. Gentleman is acceding to the requests which have been made, albeit inadvertently, from the

Northern Ireland Government that the British Government must now assume full responsibility for the application of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland? This debate has been about whether or not we should impose on other parts of the United Kingdom the responsibility for the application of this Act.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member in order, because we are dealing with an entirely different Amendment? We are dealing with the limitation of the timing of this Bill and we are dealing with how it should be continued.

The Chairman: If I discover the hon. Member is out of order I will pull him up.

Mr. Fitt: We have been asked by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) whether there should be a 3-month limitation or a 12-month limitation on the operation of the Bill. Are the Government prepared to accept even for the short period of three months that the application of the Special Powers Act in Northern Ireland should be in the hands of the Westminster Government?

Mr. Channon: I hope the Committee will not think me rude if I say that we very fully debated the whole question of the Special Powers Act earlier and it would be wrong of me to go further than what my right hon. Friend said. Perhaps the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) would be kind enough to look at what my right hon. Friend said, because I am not in a position to go further than that.
I know it is distasteful to the Committee that these powers have to be taken, but if they have to be taken, facing the practicalities of the situation, I hope it will feel able to let my right hon. Friend have the powers for twelve months, as set out in the Bill, and I hope the Committee will not accept the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Maude: I will not concern myself with the Amendments designed to reduce the period during which the Secretary of State shall have these powers but only the question of the way in which they should be continued. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for what he has said.


I do not think any of us have any doubts about the goodwill and good intentions of the Government in trying not to put a fast one over Parliament when it comes, if necessary, to extend the Bill. But in a matter as important as this good intentions and assurances are not good enough. Parliament should have this right in the Bill before it becomes an Act.
I listened with care to what the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said and to what my hon. Friend said. They are right about Amendment No. 17 and I think they are probably right, though not certainly, about the meaning of the subsection as it is drafted. I do not think the Amendment No. 17 meets the point. It would be right not only to ask the Government to have another look at this before Report stage but that an Amendment should be down for Report stage to make the matter clear beyond doubt. It is not right that the principle should be extended by Order in Council. If the Bill is to be extended it should be extended by debatable and amendable legislation, whether it be a Schedule to an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill or a new Bill. There is no question that the Bill as at present drafted says:
…at any time before the expiry of this section. Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that it shall continue in force for a further period of one year from the time at which it would otherwise expire.
That means that the Government could advise Her Majesty to make an Order in Council at any time, next week or next month, which would cause the Bill to be extended for a period of two years from the date of the Order. That is what the Bill means. At anytime before the expiry of the Bill, Her Majesty may make an Order in Council to extend the Bill for a year after it would otherwise expire. The hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) shakes his head. Perhaps he would explain why that is not so.

Mr. George Cunningham: I will gladly explain why I was shaking my head. It was because such an order would have force only if it was approved by both Houses of Parliament. In the extremely unlikely event—the hon. Gentleman must concede that it is extremely unlikely—that the Government would do that in

four weeks from now or in less than, perhaps, nine months' time, then the House of Commons has the power to do all it would want to do at that stage, which is not to amend anything but simply say "No."

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member is technically right, but when he has been a Member of the House of Commons as long as I have, off and on, he will know that back benchers and Parliament as a whole ought to have a little more assurance in their Statutes than the good intentions and hopes as to how the Executive and the Opposition will conduct themselves. It is right that Parliament should make quite clear the proper provision for extending the Bill, and it ought to be done by legislation.

Mr. John Gorst: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Maude: I should like to finish this point first. Following the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I am also somewhat troubled about whether it is, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says, quite certain that the Bill would expire at the end of a further year if an order is brought forward, under the terms of the Bill as at present drafted, to extend it. To extend the Bill for one year would extend it as it stands at present, which includes the provision that it can be extended for a further year by Order in Council.
This situation has arisen quite often in cases of contracts, where a provision is included that the person making the contract with an employee has the right to extend it for a further year on the same terms. This has occasionally produced a situation in which the employee finds himself obliged to continue having his contract renewed year after year without any possibility legally, unless the employer is willing, to get any increase in remuneration, even to counter the effects of inflation, because the option allows not only the renewal of the contract but the renewal of the option to renew. It seems that that is what the Bill does.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to say that he is assured that this would mean what it says it means. We ought to have, perhaps, a little more legal advice by Report


stage. The right thing to do is to have an Amendment on Report which makes it quite clear that the Bill can be extended only by legislation, which shall be not only debatable but amendable.
I hope that the Government will feel able to do this. If they say that they cannot do it, no doubt my hon. Friends and I will seek to fill the gap on their behalf.

Mr. Pounder: I shall not detain the Committee for more than the very fewest of moments. Having listened intently to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, what I found a difficult subsection to understand when reading the Bill I now find considerably more difficult. I say that with absolute sincerity. The fact that I dislike the Bill from the first line to the last is neither here nor there. Last night the House decided by a majority that it wished the matter to proceed and it is our job to make it as good a Bill as we can.
I thought there were certain contradictions in what my hon. Friend said and perhaps we may have some clarification. He said that the Government hoped a year would be sufficient for the Bill to run. He said that if it were desirable to renew the Bill for a year, efforts would be made to do so. He then went on to say that from year to year thereafter the Bill could be renewed. Does that not mean it could go on and on, even to the year 2000? Before the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) leaves the Chamber, may I say that it is to be assumed that the prorogation salary of Stormont Members will likewise go rolling on and on.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is only sorry he is not a Member of Stormont.

Mr. Pounder: No discourtesy is meant to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I did not mean to include him in that reference.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The attractive prospect held out by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) must not give rise to any false hopes, because even Stormont has a limited term for its duration and dissolution would have to take place—no doubt a gloomy event in the circumstances contemplated.

Mr. Pounder: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I was being somewhat flippant.
The Under-Secretary of State said he would regard it, as I would regard it, as a grave step to renew the provision year after year. I accept this, but how can it be reconciled with the possibility of the situation rolling on and on? Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour, but I feel there is a contradiction between the two concepts and I would welcome clarification.

Mr. Biffen: I am such a novice in debates on Irish affairs that I cannot guarantee that my remarks will be other than very brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) made one persuasive point—and I say this as one who, unlike my hon. Friend, voted for the Second Reading. He said renewal of the Bill should be in circumstances in which it was amendable. We are proceeding under a degree of heroic optimism that the Bill will last merely one year. There is a French quotation to the effect that the only thing that lasts is the provisional or the temporary and the title of the Bill has about it something of a challenging ring.
If I may be permitted a degree of scepticism, it leads me to think that this legislation may still be with us in 12 months' time and that we may then be thinking in terms of its renewal. In the intervening period the House will have learned a great deal more about Northern Ireland. That may be to the benefit of Northern Ireland and of the House. We will have learned a great deal more about the difficulties created for our own procedures and for our self-respect as legislators as we come to terms with the sweeping provisions of the Bill.
1.15 a.m.
I do not believe that anyone on the Treasury Bench is happy about the Bill. They excuse the nature of the Bill by the avowed provisional terms in which it is couched. Therefore if at the end of 12 months that provisional nature is seen to be somewhat more enduring then I believe that the terms on which it shall be renewed should enable it to be amended. I hope that if my hon. Friend, on further consideration of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member


for Stratford-on-Avon thinks this is a point of some validity he will hold out hope that the matter can be considered on Report.

Mr. Michael Havers: Before my hon. Friend sits down—would he accept that there is all the distinction in the world between a contract of service between an employer and employee and something of this sort? A contract between employer and employee can only be altered by agreement between both sides but this can obviously be altered at any time by a majority decision of the House.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I am sorry to intervene again but I may have misled the Committee in so far as the Committee is capable of being led by me. I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has reminded me that if one looks at Clause 1(3) it provides that:
So long as this section has effect, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall stand prorogued…".

Rev. Ian Paisley: The gloom is taken away!

Sir Elwyn Jones: That has the effect of a permanent Nirvana. All will be idleness for the Members of Stormont.

Mr. Channon: I wish to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). It will always be for the House to decide what it wants to do and it would be for it to decide what the future course should be in matters of this kind. My right hon. Friend will naturally be reporting to the House as appropriate and it is his hope and that of the Government that this will be in force only for a year. The powers are taken, subject to parliamentary approval, by Order in Council to enable this section to be continued in force for a further year and then from year to year. It is unlikely that this procedure would be adopted but that is what the Bill does. At this early stage my right hon. Friend hopes that the Committee will allow us maximum flexibility. Again I give the assurance that these powers will not be used lightly and that adequate

time will always be given for debate. My right hon. Friend has every intention of consulting the House as fully as possible and taking it into his confidence whenever possible.

Mr. Powell: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to clear up the point, since it has arisen and is clearly relevant to this Amendment regarding prorogation, and say whether the first or second interpretation of the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, North (Sir Elwyn Jones) is correct?

Mr. Channon: It is an extremely important point. Under subsection (3) the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall stand prorogued. I understand the situation to be that this Bill, if passed, will have the effect that the Northern Ireland Parliament will stand prorogued until some further action is taken to reverse that situation.

Mr. Powell: We should be clear about this, that the maximum quinquennium and limit of the life of the Northern Ireland Parliament is automatically removed by this legislation, that we are endowing the Northern Ireland Parliament with infinite life and pay.

Rev. Ian Paisley: For all the work.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If my right hon. Friend is right, we are giving permanent existence to Stormont, if not life. Does that mean that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) are going to receive a handsome pension and is that pension assignable to anyone else?

Captain Orr: I understand what my hon. Friend has said on the time position. I accept the assurance which he has given about his Government's intention. I do not really like the situation as it stands and I particularly do not like the arrangements about continuance, but none the less I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendment on which this debate is taking place and to vote with my hon. Friend on the later Amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Because of the arguments put forward, I do not think the Amendment which stands in my name covers the full point I want to make, and as some other hon. Gentlemen are


saying that they will table an Amendment on Report stage, I have give notice to the Chair that I am not pressing mine.

Captain Orr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that plain. We will see what happens on Report stage. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite raised an appalling prospect when he said that he expected that within a year my right hon. Friend would have unravelled the tangled web of the Irish problem. If we are going to wait for that to be done, and to continue this arrangement year after year, keeping Stormont in being and paying pensions in perpetuity to its Members, that is a prospect too frightful to contemplate.

Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friend gave an undertaking to consider the first Amendment on continuance. If the life of Parliament is to be extended, unfortunately the relevance of the first Amendment becomes much more important. My hon. Friend gave an undertaking that he would further consider the matter and that he was having further discussion with Northern Ireland. On Report, when I intend to move an Amendment, we can deal with factors affecting the position of indefinite extension and the subsidiary point of by-elections and a Member dying.

Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was about to say that, in view of the discussion, I beg leave to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

SHORT TITLE

The Chairman: Clause 2. The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Are we not going to discuss new Clause 1?

The Chairman: We have finished with Clause 1.

Mr. Maude: On a further point of order, Sir Robert. Do I understand you

are not allowing debate on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill"?

The Chairman: Of course I would have, if anybody had risen.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order. I rose to my feet the moment you put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", Sir Robert.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend and I both stood up.

The Chairman: I looked round the Committee most carefully to see whether anybody rose, and I certainly did not see anybody rise. We have passed Clause 1 now. If anyone had been quick enough the Chair would have taken notice of anyone rising. I did not see anyone rise and I did the only thing the Chair can do in that situation. I am sorry, but we have passed Clause 1 now, and we come to Clause 2.

Mr. Arthur Latham: I understand—I was not in the Chamber, so I cannot vouch for this, but from hon. Members who were in the Chamber I understand—that, whoever was the occupant of the Chair at the time Amendment No. 10 was debated, along with other Amendments and new Clause 1, there was an understanding that the Question on new Clause 1 would be put separately.

Hon. Members: Not yet.

Mr. Whitelaw: New Clause 1. Later.

The Chairman: Order. May I hear the hon. Member?

Mr. Latham: Many hon. Members are trying to assist me, but I think the Chair can do so best, and the point I was trying to pursue was that I understood there was to be a separate decision on new Clause 1. I understand that the vote on it cannot taken place till Clause 1 has been dealt with, and that it will be dealt with later. At what stage will that be, Sir Robert?

The Chairman: We have not reached new Clause 1 yet. When I put the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill", as I judged at the time, no one rose, and so I collected the voices, and I had no difficulty in collecting the voices. No one rose while I


was collecting the voices. No one rose at all, and so I did the only thing the Chair can do in that situation, which was to declare, according to my collecting the voices, that the Ayes had it. I then went on to propose the Question on Clause 2. I was in the middle of doing so when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) rose on a point of order, which we disposed of, and then, quite properly, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) rose and claimed to take part in debate on Clause 2. I was about to call him to do that. That is how I see the situation.

Mr. Maude: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It may have been that you did not see either me or my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) rise on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill", but in fact the moment you uttered the words of that Question we rose to our feet. [Hon. Members: "No."] You swept on with commendable speed, no doubt to expedite Government business, but I feel bound, with the deepest respect, to suggest to you that since Clause 1 is the whole Bill, and since the Bill changes the constitution of the United Kingdom, and since only a limited number of Members were able to speak on Second Reading yesterday, it is only reasonable that there should be a debate on the Question. "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill". My hon. Friend and I rose at the earliest possible moment to try to take part in that debate.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: May I hear the right hon. Gentleman first?

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Sir Robert. I wonder whether I may, with great respect, put this to you, that it not infrequently occurs that, in the very proper desire of the Chair to dispose of Questions as expeditiously as possible, a Question may be apparently disposed of and then it subsequently appears that hon. Members were desirous of speaking to it. Had the subsequent Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill", been put and disposed of, then it would indeed be impossible for you to take note of a claim to speak on Clause 1, but you are, in accordance with practice, still free

to take note of a fact which has been brought to your attention, that there were in reality a number of hon. Members desirous of speaking on the Question, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

1.30 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a further point of order, Sir Robert. Are you aware that in Northern Ireland at present there is deep feeling about what we are discussing tonight? Surely it is better that the Committee give full expression to its views than that the debate should be conducted on the streets of Belfast? Surely it is better that every hon. Member from Northern Ireland should have the time to discuss the Bill fully, because the more fully it is discussed and ventilated here the better it will be for the people of Northern Ireland? I admit freely that you did put the Question, but it was in a very rushed manner, and it was swept through very quickly. Certainly I wanted to exercise my lungs, but you had the vote taken before I had the opportunity.

The Chairman: I was surprised when I saw no hon. Member rise, because I was convinced that hon. Members would want to discuss the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". I had had a discussion with the Clerk about what would be in order upon it, but I saw no one. I ask the Committee to believe me. Unfortunately, I cannot go back now. Once I have declared that the Ayes have it, I cannot go back. Right up to that moment I can go back, but I was in the act of putting the Question on Clause 2 when hon. Members rose. I must allow a debate in the ordinary way on Clause 2, but I am bound by the rules; I did not see anyone rise on the Question, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill", and therefore there is nothing I can do about the matter.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point or order, Sir Robert. On a very important Bill, which this one is, because it brings to an end a Parliament within the United Kingdom, is it not the custom of the Chair when proposing the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" to pause for a second or two to give Members an opportunity to rise to speak? I had a number of comments to make. I deliberately did not intervene on the second group of Amendments because I thought I would keep my comments for


the Clause stand part debate. I rose as quickly as I could, because I was most anxious to speak in that debate.

The Chairman: It now appears that quite a number of Members wanted to speak on Clause 1. I should have thought that, many of them being old parliamentary hands, they must know that when the Chair says, "The Question is, That the Clause stand part of the Bill—", they must be sufficiently with it to be up on their feet to take part in the debate. I saw no one rise. Therefore, I had no option but to put the Question, which I did, and I reached the end of the Question before anyone rose. Indeed, no one rose until I was in the middle of proposing the next Question, which was "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
Therefore, I must ask hon. Members not to raise further points of order upon this matter, because I cannot help them in any way. I am tied. I want to propose the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill". If anyone wishes to speak to that, of course he may do so.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I regret what has happened, because we are dealing with a Bill of fundamental constitutional importance. Therefore, it must be seen to be dealt with fairly. I in no way challenge your ruling, Sir Robert, but it is obvious to me that certain of my hon. Friends rose, notwithstanding the declaration from below the Gangway, from those unable to see—[Interruption.]—I consider myself on this matter at least as clear sighted as the hon. Member. This is a matter of immense importance, Sir Robert, and I hope it may be possible to reconsider your decision.
At the same time, I should like to make it clear to you that my hon. Friends and I—sI think I can speak for them on this—have no wish in any way to delay the Secretary of State-designate, who I understand has important business in Northern Ireland which may well involve security matters, including the vital matter of seeking out and destroying the Irish Republican Army.
If my right hon. Friend sought at this point or fairly soon to leave the debate I am sure that neither I nor any of my hon. Friends would wish to keep him here. Subject to that, I should be grateful, in the light of this enormously important constitutional point, if you

would reconsider your ruling, Sir Robert. It was obvious to me that several hon. Members rose.

Mr. Kilfedder: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: Order. If I may answer the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) I may be able to help him. I see the real difficulty that hon. Members are in, and I will try to allow a wider debate than I otherwise would on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) has made a generous suggestion. I obviously have some very important things to do, but they are subject to the House of Commons, and I am answerable to the House of Commons. There are important Amendments still to come with which I am particularly anxious to deal myself. I hope to deal at least with the Amendment which concerns the Border. As the Committee has been so generous to me and so many hon. and right hon. Members have offered me their help I should like to leave if it is at all possible. I have a duty both to this country and to Northern Ireland which I should not like to fail.
Equally, I am most anxious to be courteous to the House of Commons from which it all springs and from which any authority I have springs. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to get on fairly quickly, because I think I shall be able to be very helpful on the new Clause which deals with the Border. If that could be done I would ask the Committee if I might be excused later, but not until I have done what I believe to be my absolute and total duty.

Mr. McMaster: There are several matters which have arisen during the debate and which arise on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" on which I should like to say a few words. A great deal of our debate has turned on the existence and continuation of special powers in Northern Ireland.
I see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) in his seat. He dealt with the powers of the police in Northern Ireland. We should not finish this part of the debate without my saying


that the innuendo and slur contained in his speech when he was dealing with the action of the R.U.C. in Northern Ireland do not represent the views of my hon. Friends and myself. If the hon. Gentle man will reflect for a moment he will realise that the police throughout the troubles have acted with the greatest restraint. The whole policy—

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Sir Robert. You have said that because of the events which have occurred you will be as flexible as possible in the debate on the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." Clause 2 states:
This Act may be cited as the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972.
With the best imagination in the world all that is debatable is that it should be or should not be so and/or it should be called something else. There is not even an Amendment in that tenor. I cannot, therefore, see how the matters which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is raising, which may well be relevant on the Schedule, can be relevant to a debate on Clause 2 stand part. If you establish a precedent by which those who wished to debate Clause 1 stand part but failed to be able to do so are enabled to raise those matters on Clause 2 stand part, the Committee will be standing on its head.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has a point. I was trying, so far as I could, to help hon. Members who felt, not unnaturally, somewhat aggrieved that we could not really have a full discussion about these things on the Question "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill". If hon. Members like to make a passing reference, or keep their comments for the Schedule, I will try to be as helpful as I can, but I hope they will not tax me too far.

Mr. McMaster: I will respect your ruling, Sir Robert, and I will not endeavour to complete the remarks I was making about the police.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman rejects my suggestion earlier that one reason for the disability of the police—I regret it and was at pains to point out my regret—was that they were no longer acceptable in areas of Northern Ireland such as the Falls Road in Belfast

and the Creggan and Bogside areas of Deny. I said that it was not their fault but the brutalising effects of the Special Powers Act, because they had been rendered by the Act unfit to carry out the policing duties in these areas. That was my sole point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to address himself to that point perhaps he would—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. McMaster: I do not want to go on about this but I cannot allow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe's remarks to appear on the record without a denial. The police in Northern Ireland have, among other things, the best detection rate of any police force in the United Kingdom or anywhere else.

The Chairman: Order. I fully realise that one of the worst things that can happen in the Committee is for the Chair to change its mind. But I am going to change mine. I am not, after all, going to allow a debate on the substance of Clause 1 on this Clause, otherwise we shall get into a terrible tangle. What I did, I did on the spur of the moment to try to help hon. Members. After some thought upon the matter, I feel it only right to say that I think the best interests of the Committee will be served if we do not enter into debates of that kind now but reserve them for when they might be apposite at a later stage of the Bill. I apologise for having to change my mind, which is a bad thing for the Chair to have to do, but I ask hon. Members now to adhere to the terms of Clause 2.

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I understand your ruling but it places one in slight difficulty. I wished to raise a point of order earlier but refrained from doing so, in particular after what my right hon. Friend said with regard to what might be raised on Clause 1. It appears now that one cannot raise these matters on Clause 2 on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Would you give guidance as to whether what I have in mind—the open-ended payment of Members of Stormont—can be raised at a later stage?

The Chairman: Order. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman instant guidance on that. If he will come to see me shortly, I shall see what I can do to help him.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. McMaster: I was saying, Sir Robert, that I accepted your ruling and would direct my attention to Clause 2. Foolishly, I gave way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). Perhaps I might be allowed to say that I do net accept anything of what he said. I leave it at that.
Clause 2 says:
This Act may be cited as the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972.
That Title is entirely misleading. It is a misnomer in that it refers to temporary provisions. In Northern Ireland there has been a sustained campaign mounted by the I.R.A. It did not start in 1969. It has been carried on since 1920. It has the purpose, first, of discrediting the police and, secondly, of discrediting the Government in Northern Ireland.
The Bill purports to deal with civil rights. If it is taken with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Friday and with the statements which have been made during these proceedings that some political solution is being sought in Northern Ireland, I feel that one must come to the clear conclusion that the Clause is totally misconceived.
The Bill has been introduced to suspend the Parliament of Northern Ire land. Clearly the I.R.A. has achieved the first two of its objectives. It has discredited the police, as the Report of the Hunt Committee shows, and it has discredited the Government of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] It has discredited the Government of Northern Ireland in a way that has led to the introduction—

Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) wishes to remain in order. For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps he will address himself to the Clause and say why he thinks it is wrongly drafted. With respect, he is completely out of order.

The Chairman: Of course, it is obvious to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that the Clause is

very narrowly drawn. He must keep strictly to its terms.

Mr. McMaster: I am attempting to argue that the Title is a complete misnomer and I am giving my reasons for thinking that. The Bill cannot be a temporary provision—[Interruption.] I hear the Patronage Secretary intervening. Perhaps he will do me the courtesy of referring to Hansard tomorrow, and he will see that I have referred to "temporary provisions" and made some point about it.
"Temporary provisions" is a complete misnomer because the campaign which has been waged in Northern Ireland will now continue to be waged not only in Northern Ireland but in this country. The result of this Bill is clear to anyone looking at the actions in Belfast in the last two or three days. It has done nothing but exacerbate the situation there. When one looks at the anger being felt on both sides and realises that the situation in Northern Ireland is tinder dry, I suggest that a Bill of this nature will not turn out to be a temporary provisions Act. It will turn out to be permanent legislation for the replacement of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
For these reasons, I believe that the Clause is misconceived and should not be agreed to by the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause No. 1

SPCIAL POWERS ACT

The Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 and all Regulations made there under shall not have effect while this Act is in force—[Mr. Thorpe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 26, Noes 138.

Division No. 108.]
AYES
[1.56 a.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davis Terry (Bromsgrove)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Booth, Albert
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Gilbert, Dr. John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Hattersley, Roy


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)




Judd, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


McGuire, Michael
Orme, Stanley



McManus, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McNamara, J. Kevin
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. John Pardoe and


Marsden, F.
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer


NOES


Adley, Robert
Grieve, Percy
Normanton, Tom


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Astor, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gurden, Harold
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Pounder, Rafton


Body, Richard
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boscawen, Robert
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bowden, Andrew
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Braine, Bernard
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bray, Ronald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bryan, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rost, Peter


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
James, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Spence, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sproat, Iain


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Clegg, Walter
Kinsey, J. R.
Sutcliffe, John


Cockeram, Eric
Kitson, Timothy
Tebbit, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Cormack, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Tilney, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Loveridge, John
Trew, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Luce, R. N.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Dykes, Hugh
MacArthur, Ian
Waddington, David


Eden, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Wiggin, Jerry


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil
Winterton, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
Mather, Carol
Wood. Rt. Hn. Richard


Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J
Worsley, Marcus


Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger



Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernle
Mr. Keith Speed and


Green, Alan
Morrison, Charles
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.



Murton, Oscar

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause No. 2

PARLIMENTARY COMMISSIONER

During the period of prorogation, reports by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Northern Ireland shall be laid before Parliament.—[Mr. Biggs-Davison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Chairman: With this new Clause we can discuss new Clause No. 3—Commissioner for complaints—
During the period of prorogation, reports by the Commissioner of Complaints shall be laid before Parliament.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am content and feel sure that it will be for the convenience of the Committee that new Clauses Nos. 2 and 3 should be discussed together. I hope very much that they will find favour with the Committee and also with Her Majesty's Government, although it may be that the purpose I have in mind would be better served by some other form of drafting.
These two new Clauses are concerned with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Northern Ireland and the Commissioner for Complaints. These officers of State have their connection


with the Northern Ireland Parliament which stands prorogued for a period of one year. I hope that out of this debate may come some clarification of their position under the new régime. As the Committee knows, the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was established before the Downing Street declaration, but that declaration welcomed the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration as demonstrating the determination of the Northern Ireland Government that there should be full equality of treatment for all citizens. That, of course, is the determination of my right hon. Friend who, one presumes, will soon be assuming the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is surely important that in this period of interregnum or benevolent dictatorship, whatever we call it, the parliamentary commissionership should be continued.
The present holder of the office, Mr. J. M. Benn, succeeded Sir Edmund Compton, who served us here at Westminster to the satisfaction of all hon. Members who had occasion to take constituents' grievances to him. Hon. Members may have studied the 1971 Report of Sir Edmund Compton in which he stated that of 21 cases investigated during the year 16 complaints were found to be unjustified and four were justified and action was taken to put matters right. In one case the complaint was held to be justified but was not remedied. It is also of interest that in his Report for 1970 Sir Edmund commented that the quality of administrative performance in Northern Ireland compared well with corresponding Departments in the United Kingdom. Of the 21 cases completed, there were five in which
some element of maladministration was found".
In four of those five cases there were errors of judgment on the part of Departments in not disclosing the full facts when decisions were communicated to the public. The Commissioner went on to state that in none was the maladministration serious or the action by the Department of a culpable nature.
The Commissioner's powers were extended to cover matters of the personnel of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and particularly to allegations of discrimination on sectarian grounds. In one

case which he investigated the complainant said that religion had entered into an assessment by the selection board. It was found that eight of the 15 candidates assessed by the board as suitable for appointment were of the same religion as the complainant. The Commissioner said:
My first year of office in Northern Ireland has not produced a single instance of culpable action in the organisation of the central government.…
Does an hon. Member wish to intervene?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: It is the noise which is going on on the Opposition benches.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am quite used to that. I beg my hon. Friends not to be diverted by hon. Members opposite; it does not worry me at all. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Fitt: Not now—later perhaps.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I shall look forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) which he has promised will follow mine, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Sir Robert.
Complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner are supposed to come through a Stormont Member of Parliament. The Stormont Members of Parliament remain. The Parliamentary Commissioner is also required to lay an annual report before each House of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and he has the option of also laying special reports before the two Houses of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Those Houses have been prorogued, and so for a year it will not be possible, one presumes, for such reports to be laid by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I turn now to new Clause No. 3 which concerns the Commissioner for Complaints. That office is also held by Mr. Benn. Perhaps his work in that capacity is even more important than his work as Parliamentary Commissioner, because it is at local level that the shoe often pinches the most. All hon. Members know that many of the grievances of their constituents relate much more to local authorities than to central departments. This is one respect in which our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland


are more fortunate; they can have recourse to the Commissioner for Complaints, whereas we have not yet found it possible to set up an officer of this kind in Great Britain.
Here again the Commissioner for Complaints is supposed to make his reports to the Northern Ireland Parliament. In only 6 per cent. of the total number of complaints that the Commissioner for Complaints accepted for investigation was he satisfied that the action complained of was motivated by discrimination. Nevertheless, that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Commissioner for Complaints find that on the whole the administration works well and that there are not many grounds for complaint is no reason for the Westminster House of Commons not ensuring that this work will continue. There is no reason to suppose that all grievances in Northern Ireland will suddenly cease because the Northern Ireland Parliament has been prorogued and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has assumed these vast powers, exceeding those of all the lord deputies, viceroys and chief secretaries of the past, including the Earl of Essex and Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford.
I with my hon. Friends have tabled these two new Clauses suggesting that the reports which these two officers are required to lay before the Northern Ireland Parliament should in the interregnum come to this Parliament. I seek to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland continue to have the services of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner of Complaints.
I look forward eagerly to hearing from my hon. Friend the future Minister of State what the Government have in mind. I compliment and congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him success.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for his kind comments and (he way in which he has put forward these two new Clauses. As he says, they refer to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Northern Ireland and the Commissioner of Complaints who operates in relation to local government.
The Government have no objection in principle to these provisions or to the ideas behind the proposed new Clauses, but there are two technical difficulties. The Clauses as drafted area little ambiguous about which reports are to be laid before Parliament. There are a number of reports emerging from the work of both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner of Complaints—reports to the Member of Parliament who first raised the matters in question, and to the complainant, reports to the civil servants criticised, if such be the case, specific reports to the House and annual reports to the House. The clear intention here is for the annual reports and the specific reports to be brought to the House, and that is obviously what needs to be realised by the right kind of Amendment.
The other point not covered in the Clauses is the need to protect the two Commissioners against defamation actions. This would not be done by the new Clauses and something else is needed. The Government are extremely anxious to meet the aims of the Clauses and we will therefore seek leave to move a manuscript Amendment to the Schedule to the Bill at the appropriate moment, and I understand, Sir Robert, that you will be good enough to consider this.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Many statutory bodies in Northern Ireland lay reports before the Stormont Parliament, such as the police authority and the town and countryside committee and many others. Is it not right that all the authorities which by law have to lay their annual reports before Stormont must in the interim period lay their reports before the Westminster House of Commons so that they can be discussed? This applies particularly to the police authority, which is most important to law and order in Northern Ireland. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that all the reports that were laid before the House at Stormont will be laid before the House at Westminster and an opportunity given for their discussion and debate?

Mr. Howell: These are clearly extremely important matters which are not covered by the new Clauses and which it would be out of order to deal with. I can give an assurance that issues of this


kind will all be most carefully considered, but they are outside what we are debating here.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would it not be right that provision could be made in the Bill for matters of that kind when it becomes law by Order in Council or similar procedure?

Mr. Howell: Procedures of this kind could be considered.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Can my hon. Friend make clear who is to instigate matters which are to be examined by the Commissioners in both of these cases? I much appreciate the manner in which he has received the two new Clauses. I was going to make a concession to the Liberal Party but, judging by the benches opposite, I assume that its Members have taken a taxi home. I openly confess that some years ago when that party was in favour of an ombudsman, I was in favour of reform in many fields but I said I did not see why an ombudsman was necessary because there were 52 Members of Parliament who were much closer to their constituents, by virtue of the size of their constituencies, than hon. Members of this House of Commons. Constituents also had clear access to civil servants, and so on, much closer to the centre of power.
It seemed to me, therefore, that an ombudsman was unnecessary. However, he came into existence. I an extremely glad that he did. When the Northern Ireland Ombudsman's reports are laid before this Parliament they will perform a great educational function. In one of his earliest reports the Northern Ireland Ombudsman said that in many respects Northern Ireland was better administered than the United Kingdom. It would be very profitable for hon. Members to study such a report and see what improvements can be made.
2.15 a.m.
It would be salutary for the Westminster House of Commons to see the reports of the Commissioner of Complaints. Northern Ireland is in advance of this country in having that office. That will clearly be useful.
From what I read of the reports of the two gentlemen we are discussing, I am certain that the reports will shorten debates in the House of Commons, be-

cause when they are laid it may well be that we shall be saved from all the routine patter we get on Northern Ireland from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and other hon. Members opposite who show no doubt commendable diligence in the interests of their constituents, particularly those who come from the South of Ireland.
I very much welcome the new Clauses. I am so glad that what in a way has become Northern Ireland's answer to the Mark Press, as employed by the Irish Republic Government, will be available to the House of Commons here.

Mr. Fitt: I have listened to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). I seem to remember that Northern Ireland Unionist Members of the House of Commons took part in the debates on the race relations legislation on discrimination between the different races in the United Kingdom, between black and white. But at that time, in 1964–65, no voice brought to the attention of the House of Commons the race problem we had in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.
I was very interested when listening to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He tried to give the impression that he was very well versed in what was happening in Northern Ireland. Without fear of contradiction, I can say that he has absolutely no idea of what is happening in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. I remember that under the Labour Government I tried to get an ombudsman for Northern Ireland; not a particular ombudsman for the Six Counties, but I wanted the Ombudsman for the United Kingdom to have control over Northern Ireland. That idea was fiercely resisted by the then Opposition, of which the hon. Member for Chigwell was a member. Now we hear that 26 complaints were made to the Ombudsman and that he found some proved and others not proved.
The hon. Member for Chigwell is also unaware of all the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Many people there did not take a complaint against the Northern Ireland Government to the Ombudsman or to the Commissioner of Complaints because they realised that within the political atmosphere they had no chance of winning, no chance of their


case against the authorities in Northern Ireland being proved. The hon. Member cannot claim with any degree of accuracy that he knows what is happening in either Belfast or within the Six Counties. Obviously he has acquired his information from some of the Unionist Members.
I believe that the new Clauses should be rejected out of hand.

Mr. David Howell: Perhaps I may seek to answer the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester Clark). Instigation in terms of this Parliamentary Commissioner would be exactly the same at as present. There would be no change.

Mr. Buck: When my hon. Friend drafts his manuscript Amendment, I hope he will bear certain matters in mind. The Parliamentary Commissioner who serves the House of Commons has working with him a Select Committee. May we be told what rôle that Committee will take in relation to the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland? I imagine the Select Committee will have no rôle related to the Commissioner for Complaints, since there is no parallel in this country. I hope he will deal with that matter at a later stage. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response to the new Clause which could be of considerable help.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the Committee will learn with amazement that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) does not want this new Clause—[Interruption.] Well, that was what he said. He said he wanted to see it rejected. I am amazed he should take that attitude after all the fuss to get these gentlemen appointed. The annual reports of both these gentlemen are available to all Members. It is amazing, alter all the furoreand accusations about discrimination, that so few cases have been proved by either of these gentlemen. They found when they went into individual cases that the extent of discrimination which had been alleged did not exist.
It should be said that discrimination exists not only between Roman Catholics and Protestants but among both sections of the community. Protestants have been

discriminated against. There are protestants who live in disgraceful housing conditions in Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, West well knows, because he represents the area, that houses in Sandy Road are the worst possible houses in the whole of Northern Ireland.

Mr. McManus: May I ask whether the Secretary of State designate will accept these two new Clauses in principle? I have no objection to Ombudsmen or Commissioners for Complaints, but will the right hon. Gentleman look again at their terms of reference? Could he give the House of Commons a guarantee that, if it is found that their hands are tied in any way by red tape which has cleverly been put round them by Stormont to enable them not to look into complaints that are put before them, such a situation will no longer be allowed to prevail?
There is so little confidence among the members of the minority in any organ set up by or emanating from Stormont that people will not bother to refer com plaints to it. I have complained in the past on behalf of hundreds of my constituents, all to no avail. Consequently they have lost all confidence—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that there are some of the hon. Member's colleagues, some of his "own", on the police authority, closely associated with the I.R.A., such as Councillor Flanagan? Surely there were people on the police authority who thought the way the hon. Gentleman thought? When the hon. Member accuses the police authority he is accusing his own people. It should be said that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wanted an ombudsman and it seems strange that, having got it, it is said that the community will not go to that person and explain their grievances. The Committee should know that I have found that by taking complaints to the Ombudsman, Mr. Benn. who looks after complaints, there are terms of reference binding these people. On this matter I would go along with the hon. Gentleman, but not on the other two matters, as he well knows.

Mr. McManus: It is encouraging to find that the hon. Gentleman would go along with me on anything. The fact that he says there are some of my "own" in the police authority is an extraordinary statement. Surely he does


not think I would refrain from criticising a body merely because there happened to be some Catholics on it. If a body is not doing its job then, no matter who is on it, it is worthy of criticism. If the hon. Gentleman means that the committee is infiltrated in some way by the I.R.A., as he says every body in Northern Ireland has been, the police have not been doing their job very well.
None of the hon. Member's points materially alters the matters I wish to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State designate. If the terms of reference are too narrow they have to be changed. It ought to be seen that it is worth while making complaints to these bodies.

Mr. Fitt: In the past three minutes there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity between the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). The terms of reference of the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints were restricted by Stormont and all sections of the community are completely dissatisfied with them. There is a hell of a degree of unanimity in this Committee that these terms of reference ought to be extended to allow the Commissioner or the Ombudsman to operate within the same ambit as the Ombudsman for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
This is one way of doing away with the divisions within the community in Northern Ireland and I hope that the Secretary of State designate will note this.

Mr. David Howell: This is not really the time and place to start handing out guarantees. All the points made in the debate will be carefully noted for the future. We are learning all the time.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

[Mr. GEORGE WALLACE in the Chair]

New Clause No. 8

STATUS OF NORTHERN IRELAND AS PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Nothing in this Act shall derogate or authorise anything to be done in derogation from the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Wallace): With this new Clause we shall discuss New Clause No. 4.

STATUS OF NORTHERN IRELAND WITHIN UNITED KINGDOM

(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of section 1(2) of the Ireland Act 1949, under which it was affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
(2) It is hereby declared that, as stated in the Declaration issued from Downing Street on 19th August, 1969, with effect from the passing of this Act no part of Northern Ireland shall cease to be part of the United Kingdom unless the consent of the people of Northern Ireland thereto has been obtained through such process as may be authorised by Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom.
and Amendment No. 53, in Schedule, page 5, line 2, after 'address' insert:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall have no application to the consent required under subsection (2) of section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949 (which provides that in no event will Northern Ireland nor any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland).

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I believe, and here I say nothing new, but paraphrase a great deal that has been said over the years about Northern Ireland, that two of the parameters or limits of the problem of Northern Ireland are, first—I find almost unanimous agreement about this—that the 1 million of the majority, the Protestants, will not be forced into the South in any way. I must say that when talking to people of all sorts of opinion in North and South this is accepted.
Of the minority, the Catholics, it is now far more agreed than it used to be that they must be allowed to work for reunification peacefully and must be given a far better place in the society of Northern Ireland.
On the political side, this was referred to last night on Second Reading with regard to the Protestants when the Attorney-General said:
It was never the intention of the Government to affect the existing position, nor do I believe that this Bill can or does affect the position as it is contained in that Section of the Ireland Act".
At col. 249 of the same Second Reading debate it can be seen that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had raised the same subject. He mentioned that in the comparable Bill of the previous Administration there was a Clause which said:
Nothing in this Act shall be taken to override or to authorise anything to be done in derogation of the principle affirmed by Section 1(2) of the Ireland Act 1949 that in no event shall Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 28th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 360, 249.]
The Lord President then pointed out that, in his view, the reason for the difference was that in the Bill drawn up by the previous Administration the Stormont Parliament was to be dissolved, as opposed to the proposal in this Bill that Stormont is merely to be prorogued. Out of a lively discussion last night came the view that whatever is put in the Bill, it can do nothing to alter the situation about the Border.
In discussions I have had with my right hon. Friends behind me today, it is accepted that as this Bill, which provides for temporary direct rule by this Parliament, is drawn, it does nothing to affect the Border.
The reason, therefore, for the new Clause is that it is not a legal assurance. I think there is no need for legal assurance. What is involved is a political reassurance to the majority in Northern Ireland, who in recent days have been shaken and shocked by change. There is no reason in logic for the shock that has taken place which necessitates this.
I have been given a document from the Presbyterian Church in Ireland which represents 400,000 people in Ireland as a whole. There are encouraging parts in the document. What is certain, even from this document, is that despite some of the brave words in it about the future, there is fear that there is more involved in what the Government are doing than meets the eye.
The purpose of the new Clause is to assure Protestants in the North that nothing more is involved in the Bill than is contained in the Bill; that this Bill of itself—I repeat, of itself—cannot affect the Border. The case for this new Clause rests at that point. The Bill is to be in force for only one year. Whatever might happen after that point is another matter. The point at issue is that this Bill does nothing about the Border; it does nothing to alter what was in the Downing Street declaration of August, 1969.

Mr. Orme: If it has nothing to do with the Border, why has that to be written into the Bill? That is what we want to know.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: That is a point which I had hoped I had made. It is clear. From the purely legal point of view there is no need for the new Clause. I have made that point. There is no need legally for it. I explained that in the first part of my remarks. But there is something more, and I would ask at this point of time for magnanimity, and that the Committee overstretch the point to make it clear to assure people in the North that there is nothing in this Bill to alter the Border. If the case for the new Clause were on legal grounds only, it would fall, but the new Clause is to meet the feeling which there is among people in the North.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman will note paragraph 4(3) of the Schedule to the Bill:
Where under any enactment or instrument it is a condition for the taking of any step (other than the annulment of any instrument), or for the coming of anything into operation, that a resolution or motion has been passed or address presented by one or both of the Houses of Parliament of Northern Ireland, then so long as section 1 of this Act has effect the step may be taken or the thing shall come into operation without any such resolution, motion or address.…


Will not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that here we have written into the Bill that a resolution of Parliament can be done away with, because under Clause 1 the Secretary of State will have the power? The answer to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is that it is necessary to give reassurance that the Secretary of State cannot override the consent required for Northern Ireland to cease to be part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I understand the matter the Stormont Parliament never had the power to alter the Border, and the powers of Stormont are to go to the Secretary of State who, in respect of this Bill, is exercising the powers of Stormont. So in law, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman will have no power to alter the Border.
Again, however, I come to the point that there are fears about this, and the new Clause is simply to reinforce the position to allay those fears.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that under the 1949 Act the guardian of the Border is the Parliament of Northern Ireland? I am in full agreement with him that a change should be made only by the people but under the law at present the Parliament of Northern Ireland has a veto on changing the Border. We want to retain that.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I recall, the words are "without the consent" of Northern Ireland. I accept that. What I am arguing is that under the Bill the Border is not at issue. That is clear from the legal point of view and from the assurance we had last night from the Attorney-General and the discussion which took place.
The Clause does nothing more than give a political reassurance for this year. Some of my hon. Friends are concerned about the future. One of the subjects that have been discussed in the past year, perhaps for the first time, is the Border. The minority in the North, it is now to be hoped, will be able to discuss this matter and work towards this change peacefully. We do not wish to remove this possibility. What is at issue here is that we wish to reassure the majority

in the North that the Bill does not affect the Border. That was my right hon. Friend's purpose in raising the matter last night. It is purely on this aspect that I commend the new Clause to the Committee.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: When I interrupted the Secretary of State-designate during his speech on this matter yesterday I was not convinced that there was no need for an Amendment of this kind in the legal sense. I was not convinced that it would be merely a double reassurance to put one in. Grateful as I was to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who followed me in that intervention of support, I did not feel that an Amendment such as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has just spoken to gave in a political sense a sufficient reassurance to the people of Northern Ireland.
In their minds up to now the position of the border has been safeguarded by the 1949 Act, which gave a negative power—in fact, a veto. That was, and remains, the situation. But in the present emotional climate of Northern Ireland the people are very suspicious—and we can very well understand their suspicions—of anything that happens in this Parliament. There are few in the majority in Northern Ireland at present who believe a single word said by anyone in this Parliament, and it will take a long time for that situation to be remedied. Therefore, there must be an assurance in the Bill, not just one given by hon. Members of all parties. It must be seen in black and white, in print, that there is nothing in the Bill which can take away from the guarantees in the 1949 Act. Indeed, the 1949 Act must be mentioned.
For that reason it is one of the other Amendments, rather than that which the hon. Gentleman has moved, which appeals to me and which I would support. Only with such an assurance in the Bill can the Government in their attempts to remove the divisive issue of the Border from the political arena for the immediate future have any hope of detente in the present situation. I should like to see Northern Ireland politics able to concentrate on matters other than the Border issue, and I think I


carry most of my hon. Friends with me in saying that.
That probably implies the birth of new political parties. I have always wanted to see a Right-Left confrontation, a more normal condition of politics, as some hon. Members would say, develop in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that can happen if any doubt is left in anyone's mind about that issue. Therefore, every reassurance and guarantee on it is always vital.
There are those who say that there is in the Bill a measure of surrender to the I.R.A. If that is so, the time has come to let the I.R.A. see the writing on the wall—the writing in this Bill—and let them see that the House of Commons is absolutely firm on the subject of the Border and that there can be no fruit from the tree of trying to upset the constitutional position by acts of violence.
It is vital that this kind of Amendment should be included in the Bill. I believe that it must specifically mention the 1949 Act and yet again confirm the guarantee given in that Act. It is for that reason that I would prefer either Amendment No. 53 or new Clause 4 rather than new Clause 8. Of all the Amendments put down to this Measure my hon. Friends and I regard this as the paramount one.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Orme: I accept, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) has said, that this is an important argument. I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) on the necessity for the Amendment. It is not my wish to see the majority undermined, but we are in a new situation. The Government of Ireland Act, 1949, gives a veto to Stormont on the Border issue. Stormont has been prorogued by the Bill and the Prime Minister has said that there will be a referendum. That referendum will give the final sanction and annul the Government of Ireland Act, 1949, and that decision will have been taken by referendum and not by an elected Parliament.
We all accept that there can be no "kidology", no sleight of hand, whereby a million Protestants are included in a united Ireland. To achieve a united Ireland we would have to act on the basis of

the acceptance of the vast majority—and that includes the minority and the majority as they are presently divided.
There is the danger that a referendum could heighten the Border issue and create difficulty, but it will be a step in the right direction if people feel that by a referendum the Border can be discussed, voted on and, if necessary, returned to again. This is better than leaving it under the old Stormont with the final sanction being with the elected representatives of that body. The criticism by the hon. Member for Londonderry is valid. If one is going to talk about the Government of Ireland Act, 1949, one might as well put it in the new Clause 8, because that is what my hon. Friend really means.
I am opposed to new Clause 8 because we are not going to resolve this issue with the Ireland Act, 1949. That Act is now defunct. It has been superseded by this Bill. We are moving into a changed situation. We all agree that, whatever comes after these 12 months, we shall not be going back to Stormont as it exists. Indeed, we might never go back to Stormont again. We might have a new form entirely. To claim, as my hon. Friend did, that this new Clause is a political means of reassuring the majority at present is not valid. Surely the statements made on both sides of the House and the promise by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State-designate of a referendum are an assurance to the majority that it is not going to be bombed or bamboozled into a united Ireland.

Mr. Maude: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but he will recognise that the plebiscite is not in the Bill and will have no mandatory effect anyway. Promises are not statutory. Would he not agree that since the people of Northern Ireland were originally promised that the veto should be held by the Parliament of Northern Ireland it is not really reasonable to transfer that assurance from a Parliament entirely composed of representatives of Northern Ireland to a Parliament where the representatives of Northern Ireland are in a minority of 618 to 12?

Mr. Orme: I see the force of that argument and I recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the hon. Member


for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) said. But we have said for years, "The Border can never be an issue because the sanction rests in Stormont." We know that Stormont has rested on a firm majority which would never relinquish its control of the situation. Yet, while we have been saying that the Border is not an issue, we have known for the last 20 or 30 years that it is the issue. It is right to recognise this and have open discussion in a political sense about it. Why leave it to the bombers and others? Why not do it politically and conduct the argument properly?
This is why I was so critical of Mr. Faulkner's statement that he could in no circumstances have in his Government any member who did not and would not accept the situation as it existed. It is no good closing our eyes to the fact that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland want the Border to go and large numbers want it to remain. How do we resolve the problem? Open political discussion is the only answer.

Captain Orr: What is wrong with doing it in that Parliament?

Mr. Orme: I am not trying to score a political point, but we are seeing the end, temporarily if not permanently, of Stormont. We do not know what is going to take its place. My argument is that we should open the subject up but give the guarantee to the majority which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State-designate have given. This is a matter of opinion. I think that the argument is, indeed, open now. It is open for those who want a united Ireland and for those who want integration or some other form of government for the Six Counties.
The Amendment is dangerous in many ways. It resurrects something that we should be seeing the back of. I regret that it is not progressive in that sense, and I feel obliged to oppose it.

Mr. John Loveridge: I hope that the Government will accept the new Clause. At this hour, I suppose we might expect to see the leprechauns creeping out from under the green seats. With that in mind, I bear in mind what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about the purpose of this Bill. It is to send a Secretary of State to take charge of Northern Ireland. It will be no help

to anyone if we send a tired Secretary of State, so, although I have a considerable amount of material prepared in support of new Clause 4, I shall curtail my remarks so that my right hon. Friend can reply to the debate fairly soon and get away to refresh himself for his job.
I ask my right hon. Friend only to consider subsection (2) of the new Clause, which gives the force of law to the Declaration issued at Downing Street on 19th August, 1969. I believe that that will strengthen the good will and sense of security of the people of Northern Ireland. It will also ensure that any questionnaire or other form of plebiscite which may be put to the people of Northern Ireland will have to be approved by this House before being formulated and put to the people. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that thought.
I say no more, except to express to my right hon. Friend my heartfelt good wishes.

Mr. McNamara: It would be wrong to allow this Amendment or one couched in even stronger terms to pass without a voice being raised in opposition to its phrasing. I regard it as a load of "kidology". It is what might be described as an O'Neill vote of confidence. If I were a member of the majority in Northern Ireland, I should regard it as something that everyone is prepared to do until the last moment.
The Bill does nothing about the Border. It does not affect the Border. To demand that the Border be dragged into the Bill is to draw an enormous green or orange herring across the whole of this discussion.
The Amendment does two things. It creates in the minds of the minority the feeling that there is an open-endedness in the idea of future talks on the status of Ireland. It creates in the minds of the majority the real fear that they will be sold down the river. In fact, it creates that fear in the minds of both communities. However, I cannot help thinking that the real fear is in the minds of hon. Members of this House rather than in the minds of people outside it.
3.0 a.m.
The political reassurance to the majority is there in the 1949 Act. Somehow people seem to have suggested that


Stormont had the right to wish away or to strengthen the Border. It had neither.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman must remember, on this valid point, that the Ireland Act, 1949, applied only to the Parliament of Northern Ireland. That Parliament has now been prorogued.

Mr. McNamara: I understand that point. My point is that because the Parliament of Northern Ireland was given this power under a United Kingdom Statute, it can be taken away just as easily by a United Kingdom Statute. Putting this Amendment in the Bill does not mean that some future Bill cannot take away this power. That is the important point—[Interruption.] People are arguing about a guarantee. I will come to the kernel of any kind of guarantee.
The second point is that the Downing Street Declaration made this point.
The third point is that we have had a statement from the Prime Minister and from the Lord President, soon to be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We have also had a statement from the right hon. and learned Attorney-General on this point.
I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) picked up this point yesterday and pursued it in this way, because it was wasteful. A further guarantee which is being given to people in Northern Ireland is the plebiscite.
My point is that it does not matter one little bit what is contained in any particular Statute and it does not matter what people have said in the past; what matters is the spirit, the determination, and the attitude of the Administration at Westminster at any one time.
I should like to cite and pray in aid—something which I rarely do—the words of the Prime Minister in a speech which he made at Birmingham yesterday. The Guardian reports:
Mr. Heath said the guarantee of the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom had never depended on the existence of a Government and Parliament exercising responsibility for law and order at Stormont. The guarantee had always depended essentially on the determination and good faith of the Parliament at Westminster.
The point is that if we ask for this or a similar Amendment to be put into the

Bill we shall undermine the very point which the Prime Minister made, namely, that it depends
on the determination and good faith of the Parliament at Westminster.

Mr. Molyneaux: Last Friday the Prime Minister said in his statement in the House:
These plebiscites will be in adition to, and not in substitution for, the provisions in the Ireland Act, 1949, which require the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament to any change in the Border. This position is not prejudiced by the temporary prorogation of that Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 24th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1862.]

Mr. McNamara: That underlines my point. If Parliament is prorogued, it is not abolished. If we can depend on the good faith of our Ministers and of this Parliament, then there is no need for the Amendment.
The Prime Minister went on in his Birmingham speech to say:
The guarantee has now been powerfully strengthened by our decision to hold a plebiscite in Northern Ireland as soon as is practicable.
The moment we start insisting upon this or a similar Amendment we undermine the whole position that we are seeking to bring about.
Writing something into this Statute will not strengthen the position; rather will it be an O'Neill Amendment, resulting in people saying "What are they afraid of?" Must it be repeated, continually, day after day until suddenly in the eyes of the majority it is realised that we have been sold down the river?
There is another important point. If we are to consider the situation in Northern Ireland in its full context we cannot rule out the question of full integration with this country. It would be a tragic mistake, but we cannot rule it out. Neither can we rule out the idea of a union with the South—which is what I should like to see; I make no bones about that. But I suggest that every time we try to move an Amendment which brings forward integration or puts out the idea of eventual unification—as does this Amendment—we weaken our options in a situation which is remarkably fluid at the moment; we tie the hands of the Secretary of State-designate and cut down on his options. When we do this we are


doing a service neither to the people whom we are seeking to help nor to the future of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In terms of good government in Northern Ireland at the present time, the Amendment that stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and myself is of the utmost importance. I take fully the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Quoting the Prime Minister, he says that the guarantee rests on the good faith of Parliament. How can Parliament show its good faith? Only by accepting an Amendment along the lines that I suggest. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that this was a new departure. If it is a new departure the majority in Northern Ireland want to know that their anchors are right at this juncture. If we deny them that assurance we make impossible the task of the right hon. Gentleman whom we send to Ulster.
I could develop that theme tonight, but I understand that the Minister wants to deal with other Amendments that we all want to discuss. I understand that he has to leave for the Province, and has important decisions to make. I should like a full debate on this matter, and I trust that the House will discuss it. But I emphasise that when we are discussing a Bill of this nature it is the paramount duty of the House to accept the wishes of the majority and the present law of the country, which states that there will be no tampering with the Border. There must be no suggestion of tampering with the Border, and even the churches of Northern Ireland, even those with churches across the Border—and the Presbyterian Church in Ireland and the Bishop of Down with whom I take an entirely different view of the ecumenical movement—both state that an assurance must be given to Protestant people that there will be no tampering with the Border.
If this Committee wants peace and good government in Northern Ireland and wants to help the right hon. Gentleman whom it is sending to our Province, this is the way to do it. I only ask that the present position, based on the Labour Government's 1949 Act providing that no part of Northern Ireland shall cease to be part of the United Kingdom with-

out the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, shall be accepted. If we do not have that in this Bill we tie the hands of the right hon. Gentleman; if we have that in the Bill, we strengthen his hands to get co-operation across the Border.

Mr. Whitelaw: I have listened to the debate on the new Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and on the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred which is being considered at the same time.
It is important to learn from debates in this House, as I certainly did yesterday. I had thought that the assurances on the Border, the pledge given by successive British Governments, was absolutely solid in that it was there in the first instance under the 1949 Act because the Parliament at Stormont was prorogued and not dissolved, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East(Mr. Callaghan) admitted on a previous proposal, and it was reinforced by the proposal for a plebiscite. I learned that it was very important for me to know that this was not regarded as satisfactory by many people whose position I must respect in this matter. The reason why they did not regard it as satisfactory was that they felt there was some doubt because the proposal of a plebiscite was not in the Bill. I have to take account of this.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) made a point about his view of the future, and so did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I must remind both of them that this is a temporary Bill for one year. I hope that in that time it will be possible for proper discussions to take place in conditions away from fear and tension. I have become persuaded that it is very important for this House, whether it is logical or not, whatever may be the legal position or not, to give assurances which can try to remove fear in those circumstances. I believe that is right.
I have regretfully to accept what I am told on all sides, that the word of British Ministers, and, indeed, mine in particular, is simply not believed at present in Northern Ireland. I have to accept that. It is painful, but I do not particularly shrink from it because if I shrank from


it I could not have undertaken this task. I know that my word is simply not going to be believed at first. I hope that in time it will be, but I know that it will not be at first. Therefore, it is very important to go further than ministerial assurances. I must also say to this Committee that I have never believed—I might even carry my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) with me on this because he has often said this—one can govern by ministerial assurance. One has to govern by Act of Parliament; ministerial assurances of themselves are not enough.
3.15 a.m.
If my word is not to be believed, and if the facts, which they are in truth—perfectly solid facts—are still not felt to be satisfactory by the majority, we must do everything we can to prove to the majority that the word of successive British Governments means what it says. This is terribly important in the current circumstances.
Therefore, it is right that we should do everything in our power to try to remove this fear and to make the majority feel that the British House of Commons is determined to stand up for what has been the promises of successive British Governments on this issue. Therefore, the Bill, temporary as it is, will not affect those pledges in any way.
Some hon. Members may say that it is not necessary. The hon. Member for Salford, West says that. Probably the truth is that in legal terms it is not. I must deal with realities; and the fact of life and the fear, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, is there. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) made exactly the same point. I must accept this.
Therefore, I believe that I should recommend to the Committee that we go out of our way, in every way we can at this stage, to remove that fear. I have a very large number of right hon. and hon. Friends—over 210 of them—who, believing that this fear is this, have tabled an early day Motion stressing this point. They feel that it is important. I will therefore go to the extreme point on this. I will, first, accept the new Clause. After that, I will go further still.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North has spoken to an Amendment which has very excellent parentage, because it is exactly in the terms that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to. Therefore, so as absolutely to give every possible assurance that lies in my power through the British House of Commons, I will accept the new Clause and the Amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
I believe that if the British House of Commons does that any suggestion that we are still not solid on our pledge would, clearly, not be fair. We should surely then, in the words of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, have removed the fear. It is a temporary Bill. It is right that this temporary Bill should be seen not to have anything to do with this issue. If we move towards removing fear at a very difficult time, which I believe is my task, it will help in the task we all have in this Parliament.
The Amendment spoken to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North has one small, technical, purely drafting, point which it will be necessary to put right. With the proviso that when we reach the appropriate point the hon. Member for Antrim, North should move an appropriate drafting Amendment to his Amendment, I advise the Committee to accept the new Clause and the Amendment. I appreciate the doubts that some hon. Members have on this score. If I am to be able to remove fear at an important point and to get people to trust that what British Ministers and the British Parliament say they mean, I believe that it must be right to do this.

Mr. Duffy: I am sorry that the Secretary of State-designate has made the announcement that he has. The feeling grew with me whilst my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was making his earlier proposals that the more the British House of Commons sought to reassure the people of Northern Ireland about the Border the more they would continue to nurture the suspicion that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) told us exists throughout Northern Ireland. I do not doubt that is true. But does any hon. Member here really believe that that suspicion will be in any way


diminished by the announcements just made by the Secretary of State-designate?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Duffy: All right then, cannot we find some more Amendments to move? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make some more suggestions during the course of the debate that will further reduce the suspicion.

Mr. McNamara: The Secretary of State-designate should have added new Clause 4 as well.

Mr. Duffy: Exactly; what is one more? We shall go on adding them, and the more we do so the more ridiculous we shall appear in the eyes of the world. Whatever other construction may have been put on the events of the last few days, I think there was an underlying unanimity in the debate that direct rule provided the House of Commons with an opportunity for a new departure, a fresh start.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was quite right when he said that the right hon. Gentleman will start off with few options. It seems that he has reduced these options already, and I cannot but say that I view the immediate future less optimistically than I did last night.

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman suggests that I have removed any options. Surely the purpose of the Bill, a temporary Measure, is to establish the position in which talks about the future can take place. I have not removed any options from myself on this. I have given an assurance to the majority, because they wanted it, so that we can conduct discussions about the constitutional future in a situation removed from fear. I would not have thought that that was removing any options.

Mr. Duffy: In my contribution to the debate last night I subscribed to the view, which is universally held, that there can be no change except by consent. But I also put it that that consent must from now on surely be consciously sought. Britain's duty to Ulster now is surely not to sustain it in a permanent stance of no surrender, which would surely stem

from any such Amendment. I mentioned this last night.

Mr. Whitehead: Surely the only option removed by new Clause 8 is a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority, which the hon. Member has said he does not want to see.

Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend did not see my point when I said that that consent can only from now on be consciously sought. Last night I said that I thought that Britain's duty to Ulster was to guide it into a closer working relationship with the rest of Ireland, which is surely a vital pre-condition for a closer working relationship between Britain and the whole of Ireland. The opportunity has been provided to bring together people from both sides to see what they had in common.

Mr. Gurden: We know quite clearly that the three or four hon. Gentlemen who are speaking against these Amendments want to do away with the guarantees and the Border. All parties in this House and all Governments have confirmed this guarantee. I challenge hon. Members to vote in the Lobby tonight against this and show their hand. That is what we want.

Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman's contribution to the debate earlier this evening was no more helpful that the one he has just made.
I was most interested to hear the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) say that he would welcome a debate about the Border as soon as possible. I could understand such assurances being given if they were associated with an early debate of that kind or, preferably, a Government statement that not only would they not stand in the way of a united Ireland—we understand the Prime Minister when he says that—but also that they positively desire Irish unity. When pressed about the future relationship between this country and Ireland or Northern Ireland, most people say that they believe that future developments will result in a united Ireland. [Hon. Members: "No."] That is an expression of opinion which hon. Members are as well placed as I am to sound out and check with their constituents.
Once the will is present on the part of Her Majesty's Government, the necessary conditions will be promoted. More important in the short term is that once Britain favours Irish unity the whole psychology in Ireland will alter. Unity is an entirely respectable political ambition. In no sense need it involve merely the incorporation of the Six Northern Counties into the existing political structure of the South. In any event, it could not come about without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and not without every safeguard. But that prerequisite must not be used as an evasion by Her Majesty's Government of their responsibility to promote policies conducive to the fulfilment of this aim. In other words, we do not want this problem with us year after year. That cannot happen because of all the impending developments, the Common Market, and our standing in the world. It is not merely that we cannot tolerate the present position for much longer than a year but that we cannot tolerate the status quo for much longer than a few years.
We must seize the present opportunity to explore the ground for a developing rapprochement, economically, socially and culturally. We have not discussed that area so far. I can do no more than touch upon it now. One or two hon. Members of the Committee are able to discuss the economic developments, but only a few. Unhappily, most of our discussions about Ireland touch either on the political or the religious; but I am glad to say that even Ireland does not stand still. Happily in recent years all the evidence of that has been in the economic sphere. This area calls for immediate study. I am thinking of cross-Border trade, industrial development in the Border counties, tourism, and co-operation between the two electricity authorities. Does any hon. Member believe that Ireland will ever get a nuclear power station without cross-Border co- operation? [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say "Come off it"—

3.30 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that there is a certain degree of co-operation, for example in the matters of electricity and tourism? Is not the whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's

speech coercive? Is he not trying to coerce the majority into a position where they will have to accept a united Ireland or—

Mr. Duffy: I have been relying, perhaps over-much, on my notes. The reason is that I was well aware I might be exposed to this taunt. I am aware that on this occasion I have to exercise more care in my choice of words. I assure the hon. Gentleman that when he refers to Hansard he will find no ground whatever for his remarks.
I have noticed certain early day Motions referring to Ireland some of which in relation to the South of Ireland are of a critical nature. Some are ill-founded, like that which is in the name of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), who described the Republic of Ireland as a foreign independent State. The hon. Member for Antrim, North who is well versed in these matters, knows that in the 1949 Act the Republic of Ireland is described otherwise and is not regarded as a foreign country. Others have sought to close the Border.

Mr. McManus: Would my hon. Friend ask the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. William Clark) to stop making inane, sedentary interventions since this is a serious debate? If that is the sort of contribution the hon. Member wishes to make, he should go home to bed.

Mr. Duffy: I think it will be rememberred that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) in an earlier contribution referred to citizens of the South of Ireland as foreigners and cast aspersions on worth of their contribution. I am sure there is not one hon. Gentleman present who has had war-time service and who has not had worthy comrades from the South of Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about closing the Border. He clearly knows little about movements between this country and Ireland. He obviously does not know that the freedom of movement between England and Ireland is fully reciprocated. He should inquire after those of his own constituents who choose to retire to Ireland. Is he one of those people who wish to see the flow stop? No doubt he will be interested in the suggestion that perhaps the most desirable


pieces of real estate in 10 to 15 years time will be in Southern Ireland. Many continentals are quite sure that this will prove to be the case.
I draw attention to my early day Motion 262, which mentions the growth of trade with the Irish Republic. I will not comment on that Motion in detail. [Hon. Members: "Good."] Hon. Members need to know these things because the Motion points out that Britain's third biggest customer is the very country of which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak was so contemptuous. In 1971 total exports from the Irish Republic to all destinations were worth a record £537 million. They have zoomed in recent years—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Wallace): Order. The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the debate.

Mr. Duffy: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Wallace. I hope hon. Gentlemen will look at the details of my Motion and see the further ground that there is for economic co-operation not merely between this country and Ireland but between the North and South.

Mr. Maginnis: As the hon. Gentleman has such an interest in Southern Ireland will he ask his friends there to stop the export of gelignite to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Duffy: I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that if I were in a position to do that I would not readily respond.
I hope hon. Gentlemen will not mind if I remind them that what I was referring to has been done without any subsidy from this country. This is a small economy that has taken off at long last, under its own power. We have now reached the stage when our Government have to look carefully at subsidies, wherever they go. We were reminded yesterday of the extra subsidies that have had to be provided for Northern Ireland in the last few years—£100 per head extra, £150 million in all. I hope no one thinks we can go on doling out money on that scale. I represent an area in South Yorkshire where social and economic needs are every bit as urgent in some respects as those in Northern Ireland. My constituents will not be content to go

on indefinitely without any help. They will claim equal treatment.
The time will arrive when we shall have to look carefully at our subsidies, especially those that have the effect of encouraging Unionists to indulge their prejudices and thus maintain the divisions within Northern Ireland as well as within Ireland as a whole. Because of the objective circumstances the Government, any Government, will soon have to call for such help to go towards unifying measures and co-operative ventures. In this way the Government can encourage and assist the promotion of policies that can make such proposals as mine a reality. Only in this way can peace be assured and the development of the common interest be facilitated. This will be aided in future by common membership of the E.E.C. This is the only constructive way to provide for a basis of co-operation, if not coalition, between the two communities in Ireland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I hope the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will not take it amiss if I say that his speech is a new version of interrogation in depth!
I thank my right hon. Friend most sincerely on behalf of my hon. Friends for the genuine effort that he has made in accepting the new Clause, which I hope will be a contribution to his work. The Leader of the Opposition in his 15-point plan talked of a variety of interlocking talks. One rather lost track of the variety of avenues for these talks. One point he made was that the talks were not to exclude anything. I understand that the Government Front Bench, too, talked about various kinds of discussions again on the basis of such talks excluding nothing.
I find it a basic contradiction to hold to that principle and to have the other principle written into the Bill, that all parties in the House are confirming that there should be no change in the Border without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That is a basic contradiction. It may be wrong, but it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend would go a little further and give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that such an item would not be placed on any such agenda unless the people of Northern Ireland had given their consent, because


this is an area where people are immensely unhappy. What is the point of having this assurance if one can turn round, have talks and put the whole thing in the melting pot?
My right hon. Friend is in a real dilemma and it would be immensely helpful if he could say something firm on this.

Mr. McManus: I almost feel a certain pity for the Secretary of State designate because he has allowed himself to be—to use a common term—fairly snookered by the Unionist Members opposite. He has been asked to legislate against fears among the majority.
I have never yet heard of Parliament legislating against fears, and, if he is going to, I suggest that many people in Northern Ireland fear ghosts. So why does this Parliament not legislate against ghosts so that the people there may not be afraid?
If he is going to legislate against fears, what about the fears of the minority? Can he give legislative assurance to them that they will never be terrorised and brutalised by the British Army?

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. McManus: Nonsense? The world proclaimed against them, and still they insist that it does not happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can protest but I have my facts right. What about an assurance for the minority that there will never again be discrimination in any shape or form, never again a Special Powers Act or Stormont? These are the fears of the minority. All the assurances are sought for the alleged fears of the majority.
These Amendments are ridiculous and unnecessary because they attempt to stop what is, in my opinion and in the opinion of many hon. Members on this side, an irresistible force, an inevitable force driving to an inevitable conclusion; the inevitable progress from the present condition to a condition of a united Ireland. Anybody regarding the situation knows that that is inevitable. It is plain to be seen, and these are legislative attempts to stem the tide which cannot be stopped.
I reject the argument that this must have the consent of the majority of Northern Ireland. It is the argument of the minority that one cannot carve up

a country so that one has a permanent majority in one corner and sanctify the difference for ever more.

Mr. Maginnis: rose—

Mr. McManus: Just a moment. I will finish this point. It is just the same as if in Birmingham or anywhere else—and the heart of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) would never outlast this—a colony of West Indians, Pakistanis, or coloured people—or in West London—were suddenly to declare that they needed a parliament of their own and that anybody else in that area would be controlled by them.
It would be as if the Government proposed that, without the consent of that majority, that situation would never be changed.

Mr. Maude: rose—

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Maginnis: All I ask the hon. Member is, what percentage of the minority in Northern Ireland would want that?

Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point and I will come to it in a moment when I have finished this point.

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. McManus: The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has made many speeches and has ample opportunity to develop his points at length in a major national newspaper.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. McManus: I will be generous.

Mr. Maude: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I just wanted to ask him one question. He said, suppose that a minority in one part of Great Britain suddenly announced that they wanted a parliament of their own. I think it has escaped him that the people of Northern Ireland did not ask to have a parliament of their own; they wanted to be integrated into the United Kingdom and were forced to have their own Parliament.

Mr. McManus: That is a very good point, but if that is the fact, why are they kicking up such a fuss that their


Parliament is being taken away from them, if they did not want it in the first place? I do not see the logic of that.
It has been suggested that the new Clause is to reduce the fears of the majority. If the majority are distrustful, as we all believe they are, of the word of the British Government—and who can blame them for being distrustful of the pledged word of the British Government?—then this device will not change that or those fears. If, as has been said, the new Clause is not legally necessary, it is not likely to convince the majority or anyone else, and it is not likely to remove the suspicions of the majority. I see it as a device which is worthless and which will fail.
It will have one adverse effect. It will make open-ended talks and an open-ended agenda impossible. The British Government give their word one day and break it the next day. With respect to the Labour Party Front Bench, it appears to be talking with two voices. There are many hon. Members opposite who think it frequently talks with at least two voices. In this case the Leader of the Opposition appears to have said that a united Ireland is a subject for discussion, and the former Home Secretary puts down an Amendment which renders such talks impracticable if not impossible.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Amendment does not mean that what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said is not a possibility. It is a reinforcement which is required, because the Bill does not alter the Border. This is the whole point of putting the Amendment forward in this way.

Mr. McManns: That is an academic argument merely. In effect it means that there is no open-ended agenda for talks on a united Ireland. People can speculate on the possibilities, perhaps, but that is not, to my mind, serious political negotiation or discussion. Speculation can happen any day, and can happen in the Tea Room or any of the bars in this place.
As to the question of a plebiscite, quite apart from the fact that, on the grounds I have previously outlined, it is unacceptable to the minority, it is needless, for every general election or by-election which has taken place in Northern Ireland since it was established has been

in effect a plebiscite or a referendum on the Border.
Despite what anybody here tries to pretend, the Border has always been the main issue in Northern Ireland. So there is a plebiscite every time there is a General Election. Who is to contest that the majority, as has been proved at consecutive elections, want to retain the Border? That will continue to be the case, because the Unionist majority will see to it that plebiscites, if they are held, can never be won. Even though it is held that members of the Catholic faith generally increase at a faster rate than members of the Protestant faith, that only means that the Unionists will redouble their efforts to force the increasing population to emigrate, thus retaining the status quo.

Mr. Powell: There is one adequate and sufficient justification for the Amendments my right hon. Friend has indicated his willingness to accept. That is that they remove a legitimate doubt which existed upon the face of the Bill, namely, that since the existing guarantee is linked with the Northern Ireland Parliament and since the Northern Ireland Parliament is affected by the Bill, the suspicion and fear might arise that the Bill affected the guarantee. It was right and justified that my right hon. Friend should decide to clarify that point and remove that ground of doubt.
I detain the Committee, only for a moment, because I think there may be some danger that we deceive ourselves into thinking that a guarantee or a promise is strengthened by the fact of its being repeated. On the contrary, in politics as in personal life, a guarantee or promise which has to be constantly repeated is thereby brought into doubt and weakened rather than strengthened.
My right hon. Friend referred to a Motion upon the Order Paper which a large number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have signed. I declined to add my name to that Motion, not because I did not wish the guarantee in the 1949 Act to be valid, not because I do not sympathise warmly with my hon. Friends the Ulster Unionist Members and those whom they represent, but because of a sense of fear about protesting too much and the danger that repetition may weaken rather than strengthen.
My right hon. Friend rightly recalled that in this House we insist in proper circumstances upon assurances given solemnly and in good faith by Ministers nevertheless being put in statutory form. But this undertaking is in statutory form, and it may be that my right hon. Friend is under a misapprehension as to the source of the anxiety which many in the Committee hope will be allayed by the Amendments. He referred to his pain at realising that the words of United Kingdom Ministers, at any rate upon this subject, are not trusted, and he hopes that a statutory provision will be more trusted.
I have two things to say. The first is that it is not only the words of Ministers and the promises of Governments which can be broken. The words and promises of Parliaments can also be broken. Ministers are Ministers because they command a majority in the House of Commons, and the breaking of promises by Ministers often involves and carries with it the breaking of promises by the majorities upon which they rely. So there is a danger of a false separation between the faith of the Government and the faith of Parliament.
It is deeds and not words which have aroused the fears which these Amendments seek to allay. It is my right hon. Friend's actions and not what we write into the Bill which will be believed or disbelieved, trusted or distrusted, by the people of Northern Ireland. The reason why hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—certainly on this side—recognise anxieties which we vainly seek to assuage by statutory provisions is that those anxieties have been aroused by the actions of successive United Kingdom Governments. The faith and the assurance which my right hon. Friend seeks to bring cannot be brought by words on the Statute Book; they can be brought only by his actions.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I rise only to re-emphasise the first part of the observations of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and I hope in doing so to allay some of the fears of my hon. Friends.
The Ireland Act, 1949 did not say that in no circumstances would the Border ever be changed. It declared

that Northern Ireland should not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
Clause 1(3) of the Bill makes specific provision for Her Majesty by Order in Council confirmed by the House of Commons to make laws which for all practical purposes will be the laws of Northern Ireland. In other words, we are taking over by means of Order in Council the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws.
As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it could be thought that in doing that we could by Order in Council make provisions which would affect the Border between Northern Ireland and the South without breaking the terms of the declaration contained in the Act of 1949. This subsection is intended solely to set that possible doubt at rest, to make it quite clear that there is no possibility by Order in Council arising out of the Bill of our taking a step which under the 1949 Act we have declared will be taken only with the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland; in other words, that in no circumstances should an Order in Council making laws for Northern Ireland through the House be regarded as equivalent to the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. It does not seek in any way to prejudice what might be done by either some future Parliament of the United Kingdom or some future Parliament of Northern Ireland on the question of the Border. That is a matter entirely for the future. It is one on which I know some of my hon. Friends have very strong feelings. I assure them that there is nothing in new Clause 8 which will in any way diminish their right to put forward these views or which diminishes the possibility that at some time in the future, whether as a result of the plebiscites or in some other way, their hopes and aspirations will fructify.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can remove some further doubts. Why have successive Governments refused to accept a simple Amendment to the Ireland Act, 1949, which would substitute the word "people" for the word "Parliament"? That is what the argument has always


been about, and new Clause No. 8 only underlines the form of the guarantee which has always been a matter of contention.

Mr. Siikin: I am sorry but I am not concerned with the question of people or Parliament but simply with the terms of new Clause No. 8. I have tried to explain what it seeks to do and to make it clear that it does nothing to derogate from any future possibility other than the possibility of using this Bill in the way my hon. Friends object to. I hope they will take it from me that that is the purpose of new Clause 8, and its effect, and that it is desirable, if not necessary, to set at rest the sort of doubts the right hon. Gentleman has referred to.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIED in the Chair]

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State-designate has puzzled me by accepting both new Clause 8 and Amendment No. 53. I have two questions to put to him in consequence. The first arises from the fact that new Clause No. 8 and the Amendment appear to me, on the face of it, to be verbally inconsistent. The new Clause omits any reference to the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament and I had assumed that that omission was intentional and that the reason for it was that there was no logic in embodying in a Bill which prorogued the Parliament of Northern Ireland reference to its consent being necessary. But Amendment No. 53 reintroduces the concept of the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament. I do not see how it is possible to have it both ways. New Clause No. 8, I would have thought constitutes a far more forcible pledge than a pledge embodying the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament.

Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is that I am trying to remove a fear. The point my hon. Friend is making is exactly the point which a great many people in Northern Ireland have put to me and it is simply not the case. As it is not the case, I am trying to give that assurance they seek. That is all.

Mr. Woodhouse: I will ponder on that intervention and go to the second question, which I want to put following the question put to my right hon. Friend by

my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). My hon. Friend asked for an assurance that new Clause 8 would inhibit any discussion of the possibility of a change of the Border. I think that was the purport of the question. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is going to answer "Yes" or "No". If he were giving the answer "Yes"—and to some extent if he were giving the answer "No"—it would inhibit the holding of a plebiscite. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there is nothing in the new Clause that he has accepted which would make it impossible to hold plebicites at regular intervals? Quite clearly there is no question of a plebiscite in the first year of this new Act. But the Act is likely to go on for quite a number of years—

Mr. Whitelaw: There is nothing in the new Clause about the holding of plebiscites. It does not affect that situation one way or the other.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As we see it, all that it does is to say that the Bill does not alter the Border. What happens outside the Bill is a completely different matter which is not referred to.

Mr. Woodhouse: What the new Clause says is:
Nothing in this Act shall derogate of authorise anything to be done in derogation from the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
I am simply asking for an answer to the question whether that inhibits discussion and inhibits the holding of a plebiscite.

Mr. Whitelaw: It cannot inhibit discussion. It cannot inhibit the holding of a plebiscite

Mr. George Cunningham: Possibly due to the lateness of the hour, some of us seem to have difficulty in understanding the consequences of certain provisions on the Statute Book which are very clear to my mind. Our confusion arises because we are discussing on this Amendment two separate matters. One is the 1949 guarantee, whether it should have been given, whether it should be sustained, whether we ought to try to get off the hook of it, and so on. Some of my hon. Friends have been labouring that point. But it has nothing to do with the Bill. There will have to be


an occasion when the House has to ask itself whether it has got itself off the 1949 hook. Unless Stormont is to exist again, we shall have to free ourselves from that commitment. But that is not a hurdle that we face now, and nothing proposed in any of these Amendments has any effect on the 1949 commitment: it does not strengthen it, it does not weaken it, and it does not touch it in any way.
The other matter, which is the only one that we should be discussing, is whether the effect of the Bill in conjunction with the Ireland Act, 1949, is to remove the guarantee given in 1949. It has been suggested that the new Clause is unnecessary in that the Bill does not touch the guarantee. I do not think that that is correct. There is a technical necessity for the Amendment, and not only for the removal of doubt.
I think that there is no doubt. The 1949 Act says that Stormont may give its consent. When we pass an Act which says that for all practical purposes the right hon. Gentleman is Stormont, then the right hon. Gentleman's consent not only could be construed as having the authority of Stormont but would have the authority of Stormont.
It might help to remind the Committee how the consent of parliaments has been obtained where it has been required by other Statutes. The only example of a similar provision that I recall is that contained in the Statute of Westminster, 1931, which provided that in respect of the then dominions it would still be possible for this House to legislate for the internal affairs of the dominions if the dominion parliaments gave consent.
Different dominion parliaments, in invoking that provision, occasionally thereafter give that consent by different devices. Some Parliaments give the consent by different devices on different occasions. It has sometimes been done by resolutions of the two Houses of the Parliament. It has sometimes been done by the passing of an Act of the dominion parliament giving consent.
Because it has sometimes at least been done by the passing of an Act, and since specifically we are saying in this legislation that anything which could be done by the passing of an Act of Stormont

can now be done by an Order in Council initiated by the Secretary of State and authorised by the House of Commons, then clearly technically the consent of Stormont could now be given, but for the Amendment, by an Order in Council. Therefore, technically there is a need in one sense and there is a need in another. In practical terms there is no need because no one believes that the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister will argue that an Order in Council under the Bill would constitute the agreement of Stormont for this purpose. However, if people in Northern Ireland are worried about that, then, because the technical possibility exists, and if this gives them any assurance, for godness sake let us do it and have done with it.
It is most important that, given the confusions which have arisen on the point even in this Committee, when the Secretary of State designate is talking about this matter in Ireland he should make it very clear that these Amendments, which he is accepting, do not add to and do not reiterate the 1949 guarantee, but merely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, ensure that this Bill does not touch that guarantee in any way.

Mr. Whitehead: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that part of the problem is that Amendment No. 53, if accepted, specifically refers in parenthesis to the veto power of the Stormont Government.

Mr. Cunningham: Yes. However, I do not think that in doing so it touches or reiterates it. It ensures that it is not modified in any way. It relates only to the Bill. This is the answer to the objection of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who said that promises repeated several times lose their validity. We are not promising anything a second or a third time; we are merely providing that this Statute will not touch the promise in anyway. It is most important that the Secretary of State designate should make that very clear in Northern Ireland. It has to be accepted that there could, and very likely will, come a time when the House of Commons will have to look at the hook of 1949 and at least consider whether it is necessary to get itself off that hook or to transform the hook in relation to an elected Parliament in Ireland into a more


formal hook in respect of a plebiscite of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Whitehead: I rise briefly to speak in support of new Clause No. 8, and to ask my hon. Friends at this late hour whether they could consider that the new Clause is necessary, though the Secretary of State designate, in attempting to make assurance doubly sure by also accepting Amendment No. 53, has made confusion worse confounded. As I understand the new Clause, there is nothing in it which refers to the powers of the Stormont Parliament or, indeed, to the provisions of the 1949 Act.
4.15 a.m.
What we are saying—and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) deserves support in this—is that under the provisions of new Clause No. 8 the people of Northern Ireland shall be assured that the Secretary of State designate is not arriving armed with powers which would allow him to change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. That is eminently sensible. The Secretary of State designate is setting out on a very difficult and dangerous task, and it is essential, in the course of doing so, that he should win, as soon as he can, the collaboration and trust of the majority as well as the minority in Northern Ireland.
We would all accept that both communities have been progressively alienated by the tragic events of the past few years. The great danger is that by taking the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act as written into Amendment No. 53, it will appear to the minority in Northern Ireland that there is an effective precluding of the kind of discussions which must now take place and which will take place.
When we heard the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) supporting Amendment No. 53, but referring to the further stipulations that he wanted to see, that there should be no constitutional talks of any kind about the future status of Northern Ireland, we can appreciate precisely the fears which the minority community in Northern Ireland will derive from the acceptance by this Committee tonight of Amendment No. 53. Hon. Members have spoken passionately about a united Ireland. I share that

view, but more pessimistically I believe that the concept of a united Ireland is more likely to come about within the context of a united Europe. Ultimately it makes sense, and it should be seen to make sense on both sides of the Border.
I should like to see the Committee take more positive steps to remove the fears of the minority. We could have made a start with the Special Powers Act, against which only a few of us have voted to-night. Nevertheless, it is necessary to acknowledge that the majority community in Northern Ireland are for the moment at least a separate entity, with a separate identity. They have a separate sense of nationhood and are at the moment under a great sense of threat.
One thing that this Commiteee can do is to accept that we can make progress—and the Secretary of State designate can make progress—in Northern Ireland only if an assurance is now given to the majority community that the legislation that we hope to pass tonight will not, of itself, be a vehicle by which the status of Northern Ireland is changed. I should hate to see that assurance manipulated in any way—as it may be by the majority community—to bring about a situation in which they feel that what has been passed if Amendment No. 53 were also accepted by the Secretary of State designate precludes the kind of discussions which must now take place in the future. One of the first things that the Commission should do, if and when it assembles is to advise the Secretary of State designate about the constitutional alternatives. The fact that these discussions are to take place should not blind us to the fact that the majority community in Northern Ireland must at this moment, more than ever before, be assured that there will not be a change in their status as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Fitt: Yesterday afternoon when the Bill came before the House for its Second Reading I had no hesitation in congratulating the Government on bringing it forward. I did so in the full knowledge that hitherto I had opposed the Government. Listening to the arguments that have developed during the course of the debates I now have no hesitation in saying that, much as I may disagree with the points of view put forward by


the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I find a cold, unanswerable logic about them. People in Northern Ireland are no fools. They may not understand all the academic terminology of debates in this House, but they know where they stand and they want to know where their future will lie.
Yesterday afternoon the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Home Secretary who is not present tonight but has delegated responsibility to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), much to the chagrin of hon. Members of the Opposition put forward the idea that the 1949 guarantee should be written into this Bill. I am not a member of the Labour Party in this House and I am not a member of the official Opposition, but I have many friends on this side of the Committee. I have faithfully and loyally supported hon. Members on this side on every vote since I became a Member. There was a ripple of dismay which permeated these benches when the former Home Secretary from the Opposition Dispatch Box promulgated the idea that the 1949 guarantee should be written into the Bill.

Mr. George Cunningham: It is not.

Mr. Fitt: I know that it is not and I know the reason. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was as amazed as I was when the right hon. Gentleman promulgated that idea. Words mean what they say in cold print, particularly in the logic of Northern Ireland. Many of my hon. Friends must have brought their counsels to bear on the right hon. Gentleman. What we are left with will please the Government, confuse the people of Northern Ireland and perhaps satisfy some of the objections made from this side of the Committee.
What we are left with is:
Nothing in this Act shall derogate or authorise anything to be done in derogation from the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
That means nothing to the people of Belfast and nothing to the people of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland, Tomorrow morning when it is read in either the Unionist Press or the Nationalist

Press, it will do nothing. It is a get-out. I am sure that I have the agreement of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). This is not what the former Home Secretary meant, and it means absolutely nothing to Northern Ireland. Certainly the Unionist majority there will accept this formula, but it will not be accepted by the people I represent.

Captain Orr: I agree, but, of course, Amendment No. 53 is different. That will mean something, something very important.

Mr. Fitt: The Secretary of State-designate has said that he will accept new Clause 8 and Amendment No. 53. That shows the pitfalls into which he is liable to fall. Referring to the terms of Amendment No. 53, the Parliament of Northern Ireland no longer exists. Even if it did, the Government should know that a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has received a First Reading and that Bill seeks to substitute "the people of Northern Ireland" rather than "the Parliament of Northern Ireland." The Secretary of State-designate should have reckoned with that fact and not accepted Amendment No. 53.
Some hon. Members have said that the guarantee is written into the statement that there will be a plebiscite. I do not subscribe to the idea of a plebiscite. If a plebiscite were to be held and if 221,337 voted for the union and 220,014 voted against the union, would the majority have the support of the British Government? Or would those in the majority then go out and kill off those who were against the union, to ensure that the majority remained in control of Northern Ireland? No one can say with any certainty that a plebiscite will solve Northern Ireland's problems.
Given the majority-minority problem in Ulster, I do not believe that the British Parliament should give guarantees to the majority. Giving guarantees to the majority will create fears in the minority, although that may seem to be the lesser of two evils. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South must recognise that there is a community problem in Northern Ireland: there is a 60 per cent. majority and 40 per cent. minority that must be reckoned with. It is not a 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. minority.
Where there is a sizeable minority which, given the opportunity, could become the majority, the problem is serious. This is why the Government of Northern Ireland failed. This is why Stormont no longer exists. The Unionist Party at Stormont since its creation in 1920 had a 65 per cent. majority against a 35 per cent. minority. Any political party must take all reasonable steps to perpetuate its existence—this is recognised in politics—and the Unionist Party had to make certain that it held the 55 per cent. majority intact. It took all steps to preventan increase in the 35 per cent. minority. That was why there was discrimination and why the minority did not get houses. That was why the minority were forced to come to London or to emigrate to America, Australia and New Zealand. This is why the Stormont Government have fallen.
4.30 a.m.
What will happen if we write guarantees into the Bill for the majority, saying that in no circumstances will the constitution of Northern Ireland be changed unless by the express will of the majority? We have heard from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and from the Leader of the Opposition that talks must take place on an open agenda which includes the possible reunification of Ireland. If the new Clause and the Amendment are written into the Bill the Government will be saying: "We are giving guarantees to the majority, and you can talk as much as you like about the reunification of Ireland but it is not on".
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has a cold and unanswerable logic. He has said that many promises have been made and many statutory undertakings have been given. But no Act of Parliament is sacrosanct. I think it was Edmund Burke who said that a Parliament or Government which failed to take cognisance of changing conditions was sowing within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I remember coming to the House in 1966 and telling hon. Members that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, had failed. I said that I lived in Northern Ireland and I understood the situation. It had never been a success. Hon Members from the Conservative side said "You cannot change the 1920 Act, because it

is sacrosanct. It is there, and it must stay." That was in 1966, and now in 1972 that Act means nothing.
The Bill now before us means everything. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is correct when he says that statutory undertakings given at any particular time can within a few years mean nothing no matter what is said in the House or what is written into the legislation. Governments must take account of changing circumstances, particularly in Northern Ireland.
It is unnecessary to write the Amendment and the new Clause into the Bill. Giving a guarantee to the majority is disenchanting the minority. This support for the majority and disregard for the minority has been the trouble in Northern Ireland. This was why we had to abolish Stormont. A State like Northern Ireland cannot be run without the consent of 40 per cent. of the people.
It was completely unnecessary for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East to suggest the Amendment yesterday. It is rather strange that an Amendment moved from this side of the House has included in its sponsors Mr. James Callaghan, Sir Elwyn Jones, who must have been caught in the Lobby somewhere on his way in or on his way out, Mr. Merlyn Rees and Mr. Silkin, who is on the Opposition Front Bench, and one Conservative Member, Mr. William Deedes. It must be unique for an Amendment to have five sponsors from this side of the Committee and one from the other side. I would have hoped that the Amendment would have shown the unanimity of this side of the Committee, but it has not.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule

CONSEQUENTIAL, SUPPLEMENTARY AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Mr. Stratton Mills: I beg to move, Amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 5, leave out paragraphs 1 to 3 and insert—
A Committee of the House of Commons consisting of all Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland shall consider all Orders in


Council under section 1(3) of this Act and any proposals to make regulations under section 1(3) of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922T.

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss also the following Amendments:

No. 21, in page 3, line 5, leave out paragraph 1.

No. 22, in line 7, leave out 'and assistance'.

No. 23, in line 9, leave out from 'them' to end of sub-paragraph (i).

No. 24, in line 12, after 'advice' insert
'and also to the Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland'.

No. 28, in line 16, leave out from first 'of' to end of line 20 and insert
'the elected Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland'.

No. 31, in line 29, leave out sub-paragraph 5.

No. 32, in line 31, leave out from 'allowances' to end of line 32 and insert
'as would normally be paid to members of Commissions by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance'.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Amendment No. 20 is probably one of the most important Amendments we have to deal with. It is fundamental to the whole scheme of government which is being introduced by the Bill. I regret that it comes at a very late hour. Nevertheless I make no apology for outlining the relevant arguments.
The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the Northern Ireland Commission from the Bill and put in its place a Select Committee of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament from all the constituencies of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.
I outline my basic objections to the Commission. I appreciate that while the ultimate power will rest with the Secretary of State, the Commission will take on the rôle and function of acting as the voice of the people of Northern Ireland and replacing a democratically elected Parliament. But the Commission is not a democratically elected body but a body appointed by the Secretary of State. Its functions are twofold. Let us first examine its general advisory powers. Presumably

it could be asked to advise the Secretary of State on all matters relating to security. This is a vast area. But the Secretary of State will be being advised on this issue by a body which will not be responsible to an electorate and which will not have been elected by the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps it will also be asked to deal with the whole range of economic matters. With high unemployment and immense economic problems in Northern Ireland, added to by the disturbances, again this is a vast area, but the Commission which will be advising the Secretary of State will not be responsible to an electorate.
There are many other matters in the whole ambit of things covered by Stormont, which sits for an average of 20–25 hours a week, on which this body will be asked to advise generally. I make no apology for repeating that the Commission will not be responsible to an electorate and is appointed by the Secretary of State.
The Commission's second function is even more far reaching. It will be asked to advise the Secretary of State on the whole range of legislative power he is taking under Clause 1(3). From what the Secretary of State designate has said earlier, this will cover most of the Bills before Stormont at present—that is, about 20 Bills. That is a vast area of legislation. I understand that only in exceptional circumstances will additional legislation be brought in by this method. There are many matters involving strong principle which were on their way through Stormont and which will be cut short and transferred to a body, no matter how eminent or effective, which will be an appointed body not responsible to the electorate of Northern Ireland.
I ask the Minister in his reply to answer the following detailed questions. What kind of persons will be appointed to the Commission? Will they be civil servants, politicians, people who are non-political, or non-civil servants, or will there be a kind of mixture of all these elements grouped together?
How many people will constitute the Commission? How often will they meet? How much time will they spend on their work? How will they gauge public opinion, particularly when it is remembered that Stormont Members are close


to the grassroots and spend much of their time at meetings, seeing delegations and attending advice centres. They are the kind of people who will be very much in touch with reality—much more in touch with ordinary people and their views than would any appointed body. I do not see how a commission could fill this type of rôle.
How much are the Commission members to be paid? Does it make sense to have people appointed and paid by the Secretary of State advising the Secretary of State on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland? I believe it does not make sense, and I have in mind the words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who said that the Commission was an abortion, and he was absolutely right. It is an inappropriate method of dealing with these problems.
Nevertheless a job has to be done. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and say that these matters cannot be considered by the people of Northern Ireland, because it is essential that they have a say. I am looking for a substitute—not an ideal substitute, but the best one can get. I have come round to the idea of a Select Committee of all the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament at Westminster. If the Bill goes through, we shall be the only people who are elected by the electorate of Northern Ireland. It would be a committee of eight Ulster Unionists, one Democratic Unionist and three hon. Members opposite—a committee with a variety of opinions. We are the people who are the most entitled in the new situation to speak for the people of Northern Ireland. I recognise that this would extend the function which we were elected to this House of Commons to fulfil, but it would be irresponsible not to recognise that there is a job to be done.
4.45 a.m.
The committee would operate as a Select Committee of the House and it would have brought before it Ministers, civil servants and witnesses who would appear on an interrogatory basis to be asked questions about matters affecting legislation, enabling them to justify their view, and we would report accordingly. Such a committee would also meet to consider specific points of importance to

Northern Ireland. I recognise that this would be a heavy burden of work for us. We would also have to examine the Northern Ireland Estimates and various matters relating to Northern Ireland finances. We would probably also have to consider reports from Northern Ireland public bodies which are normally considered by Stormont—such as the tourist board, the housing executive and the police authority. These bodies have always been debated in Stormont, and to let this procedure lapse would be wrong.
This may have been covered earlier, but I am not quite sure about what happens to Statutory Instruments. Perhaps these might be grouped together. If we are to undertake this work it would be vital that we should be supplied, in these special circumstances as a small number of Members carrying this heavy burden, with an individual secretariat and research staff, unique to the committee, which could independently advise us and help us.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). It was I who used the expression yesterday that it seemed that the suggestion of a Commission was a kind of unhappy parliamentary abortion. If I had said that it was an unparliamentary abortion it would have been more appropriate. There are strong feelings about this and the Government must know this by now. No doubt those feelings will be reiterated by my hon. Friends, and I suspect by hon. Members opposite, when they return to the Committee. I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has gone to restore his credibility gap, which was developing politically and sartorially.
If the Government move at all, and I hope they will not, they should move very slowly. They are not bound to move fast. I agree with my hon. Friend that this proposal is to establish an undemocratic body to take the place of the elected representatives whose function—whether or not they carried it out well does not concern me, because I have no mandate for inquiring into that—was to examine legislation line by line and to scrutinise various provisions which went through Stormont. There is no question of elected representatives doing that under this provision. I do not believe that the


proposal will work and I was interested to hear that my view was shared by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) yesterday.
The right hon. Member said at the time that he was a little worried and doubted whether, with the best will in the world, the proposal would get off the ground. He went on to talk of somewhat extravagant phrases which have been used about people who might serve on the Commission. I used some words which some would perhaps call extravagant when I called it an abortion, but it is abhorrent to the majority in Northern Ireland at present.
When one wishes to be rude about anything one puts "para" in front of it, and this is a paralegislative rôle which is proposed. It is a body which would be appointed by the Secretary of State designate. If one was being rude about it, one would say that the Commissioners were his creatures. Somebody earlier described the Secretary of State designate as a Czar or Shah. I remember the remark by President Johnson about the Shah of Persia: "He is my kind of Shah". It may be that the Secretary of State designate is that kind of Shah, but we cannot be sure that he will be always in that position. That fortifies my objection to the proposal.
It would be far better if the Secretary of State designate were not to push this proposal. He would, as my hon. Friend has suggested in different words, do much better to consult whom he wants to and who will consult with him, more especially the elected Members of this House of Commons from Northern Ireland.
There are many questions. Some have been asked already by my hon. Friends, but many more could be asked about the Commission. It will be difficult for the Secretary of State to make up his mind on his course if he gets conflicting advice from the proposed Commissioners and elected Members of this House. I can see many other difficulties on which I shall not dwell at present. The Government will do well to go extremely slowly before making up their minds finally to take this step. They would also do well to consider the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend for a Committee or Select Committee of the

House, and they should not be deterred by the evident reluctance of the hon. Member for Belfast, West to serve on such a Committee.
It is true that hon. Members elected from Northern Ireland would be perfectly entitled to say that in such a committee they might be asked to deal with matters they were not elected to deal with, and some would modestly, and perhaps correctly, say that they were not experts by any means, nor do they pretend to be experts in some of the subjects with which they had to deal. A formidable task which would fall on those elected from Northern Ireland, but I hope the Government will pause before going forward with this initiative.

Captain Orr: I agree completely with my hon. Friends who put down the Amendment in the general opposition to the concept of the Commission. I will not repeat their arguments, but the Commission is the creature of the Minister designate and is appointed and paid by him. But it is rather worse than the usual kind of creature we have occasionally set up. We have all kinds of ridiculous bodies, such as the B.B.C. Advisory Committee, which is appointed by the B.B.C. and paid by the B.B.C, of which nobody takes any notice. But there is a difference between such bodies as that and the Commission, although it is a body appointed by the Minister and he need not necessarily take its advice. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), advising the Government to go easy on the question of the Commission, has put his right hon. Friend in something of a difficulty, because this part of the Schedule lays upon the Minister the duty in almost every case to put before this body any proposal for legislation.
If the Minister has an Order in Council he has the duty to lay it before the Commission. Unless my Amendment No. 23 is accepted my right hon. Friend will have no option but to set up this curious body and to put before it his proposals for legislation. He may not have to accept its recommendations but it will be the only body to have the right of scrutiny of proposed legislation before it comes before the House of Commons here. As drafted, the Schedule is more dangerous than at first sight it would appear, because it is not empowering the


Minister to set up a group of his own advisers but to set up, to use my hon. Friend's phrase, a para-parliamentary body.
Unless my Amendment is accepted we shall be in very great difficulty. There is not the slightest doubt that the Minister will be able to get people to serve on his Commission; he can buy them; he will have power to buy people to come on to his Commission. They will be hopelessly unrepresentative, because nobody who believes in parliamentary democracy, nobody in Ulster who knows he has already voted for someone to represent him in Parliament, will be in the least impressed by anybody whom the Minister selects. Indeed, most people who believe in parliamentary government will not wish to serve on the Commission, unless the Minister sets his price pretty high.
It is obvious that this so-called Commission is not going to get off the ground, is not going to have any really useful function at all. It seems to me most extraordinary to put upon the Secretary of State a duty to lay his legislation before this extraordinary body. There is nothing in the Bill or in the Schedule which commands the Minister to lay his legislation before anybody who is at all representative; he is not commanded to consult anybody except this extraordinary body.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: There is the House of Commons.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but the duty is to lay before the House of Commons the order when it is a fait accompli and the House can only say "Yea" or "Nay". The Minister will have the duty to lay his legislation before the Commission long before that. It is only the Commission that will have the right to scrutinise. It is only the Commission that will have any authority to suggest amendments to the Minister.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State designate said yesterday:
But it will not have any form of veto, and I am in no way obliged to take its advice."—[Official Report, 28th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 244.]

5.0 a.m.

Captain Orr: I accept that, but it is the only body that has the privilege of tendering advice to the Minister at the stage when the legislation is in draft.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the Commission will have the mind of the Minister and know the way it is working on legislation, and can then advise, while Members of this House of Commons representing Northern Ireland will not know his mind?

Captain Orr: Yes indeed. My hon. Friend is perfectly right. They will not only have the Minister's mind, but if the Minister has paid them enough they will have every incentive to agree with his mind.
The point is that it is the only body that the Minister has any duty to consult. That is the only stage at which anybody sees the Minister's draft and has any possible chance of amending it. It seems to be a negation of everything that we believe in, preparing legislation by the consultative process.
If it were possible for the Government to accept Amendment No. 23 a good deal of the objection to the Commission would disappear, because if that mandatory command upon him disappeared he would be entitled to set up any advisory body he wanted. Then his body would be on the same footing as Members of Parliament, the trade unions or any other organisation he might wish to consult. But so long as this obnoxious duty is there, so long as this peculiar right is given to the Commission, so long will nobody who values parliamentary government in Ulster serve upon the Commission except those whom the Minister may buy. I hope my right hon. Friend will consider this Amendment. It is the way out of the difficulty.

Mr. Maude: I entirely agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has said. His suggestion is clearly the right course for the Government.
I do not want to detain the Committee very long but I want to say exactly why I believe the Commission is a nonsense. I do not disguise my belief that the whole Bill, this initiative on the part of the Government, is based on a total


misreading of the situation in Northern Ireland and the possible benefits to be gained from it, and an ignorance of the possible damage and danger which can arise from it.
The Government are gambling on attempting to secure some support which the security forces and the Government of Northern Ireland do not now have, and which it is my belief they cannot secure in sufficient quantities to affect the issue, and they are risking at the same time the loss of the support of the majority, which has stood loyally behind the forces of law and order. If the Government have, as I believe, based their entire initiative on a misreading of the situation, it is particularly important that whatever they do should carry conviction and should at least seem to get somewhere in practical terms and to mean something.
It is perfectly clear that the Commission is a sham, must always be a sham and cannot possibly serve the end which the Government purport to be pursuing in bringing forward the Bill. Whom will the Commission represent? The whole idea is based on the fact that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House hope to get the co-operation of people who are alienated from the Government of Northern Ireland. This can be done only if they secure the co-operation of genuine representatives of the minority in Northern Ireland. These are the only useful people they have to conciliate and whose co-operation they have to secure.
The doubt I have had in my mind from the moment talk of a political initiative started has been what goods and how much effective support can be delivered by the people whom the Government were hoping to bring into consultation and in helping them to run the country. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) represents constituents in Northern Ireland, and he is the leader of a party in Northern Ireland. He has up till now withheld his co-operation from the Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland. He has welcomed in slightly qualified terms the Government's initiative and what is in the Bill, and it is to be assumed that he will now co-operate with the Government. I do not know how much effective support for the security forces and the forces of law and

order the hon. Gentleman is able to deliver when he comes to a conference table, but at least he has been elected and he should be able to deliver some support.
But what support can be given by someone who is put on a Commission as a paid adviser? He may be put up as a symbol of certain people in Northern Ireland, but he cannot effectively represent from the grass roots the views of any substantial section of the minority or majority to the extent that can be done by an elected hon. Member of the House of Commons or the Northern Ireland Parliament.
If there is set up as a central feature at the beginning of a new initiative a Commission which is patently a sham and which will be composed of people who cannot be in the slightest degree representative of the people one wants to conciliate, not only will the minority not be conciliated and not give their support but the fears of the majority will be exacerbated rather than calmed. For all those reasons and many more, my right hon. Friend would be well advised to accept Amendment No. 23 which does not prevent him from having his Commission but would mean that the Commission would be less of a nonsense and less of a sham than it will be under the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Fitt: I believe that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has cast an unnecessary slur on those persons who may want to be members of the Commission. I hope that, in common with me and many others in Northern Ireland, he will be prepared to give the new initiative a chance to operate. No one can guarantee that it has any hope of success, but at least the die has been cast; Stormont has been suspended for at least one year. I hope that in the next 12 months steps will be taken to bring both communities together.
In any public pronouncement I have made, I have indicated that I will do all in my power to bring together the two warring communities. The hon. Gentleman has said that people will serve on the Commission only because they have been bought by the Secretary of State. I hope he will recognise that there are many people in Northern Ireland, including people from his constituency and from all the Six Counties, who want to


do all they can to bring about a better situation and who will serve on the Commission without recompense.
I cannot now say whether I or any of my party or any of the minority will be prepared to serve on the Commission, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if any members of the minority do agree to serve they will not be doing it from the point of view of how much they will get for their services. It is unfair of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South and those who support him to say that people will only be serving on the Commission because they have been bought by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman must know that there are many decent people in Northern Ireland who are not members of the Unionist Party or the Alliance Party of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, who have a true and abiding interest in the future of Northern Ireland and who will give their services in the fervent hope of bringing about a better community. It is opportune now for the hon. Gentleman to say that there will be people prepared to give their service, not because they have been bought, but because they believe in the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: I support the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to bring some sense into the situation. The Commission will be non-parliamentary based. My hon. Friend is trying to give my right hon. Friend a way out of his dilemma. The Amendment gets to the kernel of the problem which will face Northern Ireland under the Commission. Hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will have to be consulted in any case, so I see no real problem in providing the necessary secretariat in the House of Commons to help my right hon. Friend in his decisions on future action in Northern Ireland.
I believe, despite all that has been said, that the proposal for a Commission amounts to nothing more than "instant whip" government. The House of Commons is supposed to be the home of democracy. To use the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), if we allow this thing to go through in its present form the very stones of this place will cry out against us.

Mr. Buck: It is important that my right hon. Friend should not make himself and his able Ministers look foolish when they take on this job but he is in danger of doing so if he pursues this part of the Schedule unamended. We surely must have an indication about who is to serve on the Commission. It will have to be set up in a few days. Paragraph 1 says:
So long as section 1 of this Act has effect, there shall be a body, to be known as the Northern Ireland Commission…".
It is getting late. Who is to serve on it? Surely my right hon. Friend has names in mind. If the Commission is not to be made to look ridiculous, they must be names which command respect. We have just heard from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). It had been my impression before he spoke that he had agreed to serve on the Commission. However, he has said that there is a possibility that he and some of his friends may serve on it. I hope that they will. I hope too that Stormont leaders such as Mr. Faulkner will.
It is absurd to make it obligatory upon my right hon. Friend to have to consult this body until it is constituted and until it contains people of worth who will command respect in the Province. That is why it is important that Amendment No. 23 should be considered with great care. It will make my right hon. Friend's task very much easier. He has the awful job of tackling the problems of the Province. In his own interest, I hope that he will consider the Amendment. He will make his life more burdensome if he does not and, frankly, he will make the Commission look ridiculous.

5.15 a.m.

Mr. McMaster: I want to adopt all that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) that we should go the whole hog, and I invite the Committee to consider Amendment No. 28, in which I suggest that the Commission should consist of the elected Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland.
I suggest this quite seriously. In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister detailed the disagreements that he had had with the Cabinet of Northern


Ireland, and why he had removed executive power from that Cabinet. But he said nothing to criticise the Northern Ireland Parliament.
I am concerned about the return to parliamentary government at the end of the year. Surely it would be wise to use the elected Members that we have already in the interim. It is unlikely that we shall ever get a better representative body. By their training and experience, elected Members of Parliament are used to gathering opinions from the people to whom they are responsible—[Interruption.] I notice the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) smiling. It may be that it is not a perfect body. This Parliament is not a perfect body.
It is certain that the volume of work which will be created by this Bill is far too great for the existing 12 Members of this House representing Northern Ireland to perform efficiently, along with their ordinary Westminster functions. I suggest that no other nominated body of persons such as those representing chambers of commerce and similar organisations would be as competent to debate Measures of the type covered by the Bill as the existing Members of Stormont.
I have some experience of chambers of commerce. I am sure that the body which my right hon. Friend will nominate will debate endlessly round and round in circles, but it will really hold responsibility to no one. I suggest that its debates and conclusions will not be particularly helpful to my right hon. Friend.
The Northern Ireland Parliament is in existence and its Members who have been elected are already being paid. Why not make use of them? At the end of the transition period, be it a year or longer, we hope to return to representative government in Northern Ireland. Because of the peculiar situation of Northern Ireland, its geographical location and distance from this country, I believe that a subsidiary Parliament is the most efficient, effective and best method of government in matters such as those which have already been covered. The Bill implies that we are to revert to that type of government at the end of a year. If the Bill is genuine, let us show the people in Northern Ireland that it is genuine. Let us make it easy for the transition back to parliamentary govern-

ment by using the Members who have been elected for this very purpose. It may be that their powers to debate, and so on, as a result of the passage of the Bill, will be reduced. But is not that a traumatic enough experience without sending them out into limbo?
The effect of the Bill in Northern Ireland has been dramatic. It is unfortunate that, just as enthusiasm on these benches gathers to support the Bill, there is an equal and opposite revulsion in political circles in Northern Ireland against the Bill and all that it intends to do. If progress is to be made in Northern Ireland, surely those who are politically conscious there must support my right hon. Friend in his efforts to restore law and order and efficient and effective government of the Province.
For this reason, I suggest that, as an important initial step, my right hon. Friend should show his confidence in the people of Northern Ireland by asking their elected Members to perform this important task.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to Amendments Nos. 22 and 24 standing in my name. I find myself in agreement with hon. Members who have spoken to Amendments Nos. 20 and 23. However, I should like to point out that, regarding this entirely undemocratic body which is to be set up, we are not told the types and numbers of persons who will be asked to serve on it.
This body is
to give advice and assistance".
I think that the words "and assistance" could be very dangerous. The Secretary of State designate will have the right to appoint people to head Departments. He will also have the right to appoint people to do the work which is at present done by the Governor of Northern Ireland. It seems to me that this Commission could be made into the kind of Government Cabinet not answerable to the House of Commons. The only person answerable to the House of Commons will be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Therefore, I propose that the words "and assistance" should be deleted so that this Commission, if we are to have it, should advise only. I am opposed to the Commission, but if we are to have it I should like it to be a purely advisory body.
The Secretary of State should be obliged not only to ask the advice of this body, but to ask the advice of every Member of Parliament here who represents a Northern Ireland constituency. I do not refer to the Parliament which has been prorogued; I refer to the Westminster Parliament. Afterall, if an independent nominated body, paid by the Secretary of State designate, is to advise him on the future legislation and laws of the Province, the elected representatives of the House of Commons—to whom he is finally answerable—shouldbe put at least on the same platform. I think that they should be on a higher platform, but if we accept the Bill—and it is clear that the Government are going to force it through—the elected representatives of the House of Commons should at least have a place of equality.
In the interests of getting a true reflection of what the people of Northern Ireland are thinking, the idea of the Commission envisaged in the Bill is a very dangerous one. Instead of helping the Secretary of State designate it will be his greatest hindrance.

Mr. McManus: I oppose the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). He went to some length to explain why it would be advantageous simply to re-appoint all the Members of the Parliament that now stands prorogued. If that is to be the case I, for one, cannot see the sense in proroguing it in the first place. If we prorogue that Parliament one day and then appoint all its members the next day to a Commission, we shall succeed in making the Government look very silly.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member must realise that although I agree that this Amendment is something of a dog's dinner—[An Hon. Member: "A dog's breakfast."]—at any rate, it is a bit of a mess, there is a difference between the advisory functions outlined for the Commission under the Bill and the ordinary functions of a Member of Parliament. The greatest distinction of all lies in the fact that the Government of Northern Ireland are to be suspended for the time being. Surely that is sufficient.

Mr. McManus: I admire the tenacity of the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

He is making a gallant effort to get Stormont back in by the back door. Before 12 months are up he wants Stormont, or a body like it, back there.
The other Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr-Stratton Mills) also confuses me. He wants to tie down the Secretary of State designate, saying that a committee of all Members shall consider Orders in Council. I am not against the idea of any Minister of the House of Commons or any other House consulting all the hon. Members involved, but there appears to be some compulsion implicit in the Amendment. The same hon. Member and his colleagues spent several hours debating the question why most matters should go before the House of Commons—that they should be thrown open as far as possible to debate on the Floor of the House. That appears to be at least contradictory, if not directly contrary, to the essence of the Amendment.
They say, on the one hand, "We must take power out of the hands of the Secretary of State designate and make him accountable to the House of Commons", and then, in the Amendment, "We must make the Secretary of State designate accountable to all the Members from Northern Ireland in the House".
The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is again a puzzling one, because no one knows what this Commission is all about. I am not particularly fond of commissions. The only saving grace that this one will have is that it will last for only one year. After that time it will not move back to Stormont; it will move on, when, in my opinion we shall have moved closer to what my hon. Friend and I recognise as the inevitable solution—the reunification of the country. I cannot see much sense in the Amendment.

[Sir STEPHEN MCADDENin the Chair]

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I put my name to Amendment No. 23, but I shall speak in support of it only for a moment because the ground has been well traversed by other hon. Members. I object to the Commission proposed in the Bill. Northern Ireland is part of the homeland, not a colony. This Commission is the sort


of institution which one expects to find in a colonial territory.
I commend to the Committee the leading article in what now is yesterday's Daily Telegraph. It explained why Ulstermen who had resented having a Parliament forced on them—Mr. Craig described its acceptance as a supreme sacrifice—have since become attached to their Parliament. The writer of the editorial said:
To an extent not always appreciated, the answer lies in the quiet efficiency with which that institution has operated in its handling of day to day business. It has been equally accessible to people; it has dealt promptly with individual grievances having no political overtones. Many desperately fear that this efficiency will not be reproduced by a commission of people who have no responsibility to the electorate, and who may be exposed to all kinds of pressures which their British masters will not understand.

Mr. Fitt: I have listened with a great deal of interest to arguments advanced in support of Amendment No. 23. I have mixed feelings at the moment. I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and entirely disagree with what was said with such vehemence by those supporting this Amendment.
I want to tell hon. Members who do not represent Northern Ireland constituencies the true facts. A member of the Conservative Party or a member of the Labour Party representing an English, Scottish or Welsh constituency is elected as a Member of Parliament and there is a local authority in his constituency. He may not have time to deal with his local authority's problems but if they are sent to him by letter he can refer them to the members of the local authority. Every Northern Ireland seat represented in this House has four representatives in Northern Ireland and there are 16 local authority representatives. By comparison with Conservative, Labour or Liberal Members, it would appear that the electorate in Northern Ireland is well served.
Until yesterday when the Stormont Parliament was prorogued the only things we could speak on in this House in relation to our constituents were the Post Office, income tax and defence. All other matters were reserved to the Northern Ireland Parliament. On many occasions I have gone to the Table Office in this

House and tried to ask Questions about unemployment and housing, but I have been told that those are matters for the Northern Ireland Parliament. We were precluded from raising them in this House.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) makes his own speech and then tries to interrupt everyone else. I do not know why I should give way to him now.
Hon. Members from Northern Ireland, including myself, have had an easy time in the House of Commons in comparison with other United Kingdom representatives. This is why there is this big squeal at the moment. Most hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies do not want to have questions of housing, health, social services, pensions, and so on, dealt with here: they would far rather that any work in that regard were done at Stormont.
On the question of the Commission, from listening to the speeches which have been made one would gain the impression that hon. Members opposite were great democrats and did not want anyone to serve on a Commission unless he were elected. I could within the context of the Northern Ireland situation refer to the whole question of gerrymandered constituencies. Then there is the question of the Commission for Derry. The majority of people in that city did not agree with the way the city was being run. The Catholic majority were being run by the Protestant minority. The Northern Ireland Government under Major Chichester-Clark, as he then was, abolished Derry City Council and appointed a Commission for Derry. No one in Stormont raised any objections to that.
The Commission for Derry did an awful lot of good. It built more houses in one year than had been built by Derry corporation in the previous 20 years. The Commission for Derry carried out a herculean task in trying to rebuild Derry after all the disturbances and the wrecking that had taken place. Northern Ireland Members cannot in logic say that they are totally opposed to a Commission appointed by the British Parliament when they are members of the Unionist Party, to which Mr. Faulkner and Major


Chichester-Clark—he appointed the Commission for Deny—belong.
Hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have had a life which has been far too easy in comparison with other elected Members. I am prepared to undertake any extra burden that may be imposed upon me. I hope that Unionists Members are prepared to accept the same burden.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) has succinctly and persuasively indicated the virtues of Amendment No. 23, and I hope that the Government will view it favourably. I wish to refer to the whole concept of the participation of a Commission in the administration of Northern Ireland in the months ahead. We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) for initiating this debate, which will enable the Government to give to Parliament and to the wider public outside a view on exactly what rôle they foresee for the Commission.
Two kinds of Commission could emerge. One would be a purely technocratic Commission, composed of people qualified in the techniques of administration, who would not be presumed to have any particular significance, but whose assistance would be of considerable benefit in the arts of administration.
I suspect that the Government may hope that this will be used to represent a political influence which hitherto has not been evident in Northern Ireland. I think that this course could hold very dangerous consequences. A good deal of our approach to problems in Northern Ireland is bedevilled by the supposed existence of what people are pleased to call "moderate opinion". I am thinking particularly of the line argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) on Second Reading yesterday as though somehow or other this great, significant opinion exists in Northern Ireland but by one mishap or another it has never been allowed to reveal itself.
Therefore, the possibility is that this Commission will be used to give political expression to what many hopefully believe are forces which have widespread popular support in Northern Ireland, although it is a widespread popular sup-

port which, for some reason or other, has never been able to reveal itself whenever the matter has been put to the test of the ballot box, either in a general election or in recent by-elections. We have had ample evidence during the years of painful disimperialism when we have sought in colonial territory after colonial territory, usually by the device of fancy franchises, to encourage the manifestation of political opinion which was not popularly founded.
Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends do not proceed on the assumption that the Commission can be used to give voice to a political opinion in Northern Ireland which is in reality very narrowly based, even though it may be saying some of the things which to English ears would seem eminently reasonable but, none the less, in the context of Northern Ireland would seem wildly impractical.

Mr. Pounder: First, I would like to clarify a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). who is the master of the misleading. He spoke of the Londonderry Commission, which is an executive body having assumed all the authority of the civic authority which it succeeded, and tried to dress up the abomination of the Commission in the Schedule as if it were a kindred spirit. He cannot get away with it, and I think he realises that, although it was a good try.

Rev. Ian Paisley: When it was announced in the Northern Ireland Parliament that there was to be a Commission in Londonderry, the names of the members serving on that Commission were made available so that their talents and qualifications could be debated. We need houses in Londonderry, and yet the old Londonderry City Council in its housebuilding programme gave 92 per cent. of its houses to the Roman Catholic population.

Mr. Pounder: I was not aware of the statistics, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for that. On the first point, I entirely agree with him. When the Commission was announced, so were the names of the members. Here we have neither their names nor even a remote idea of the salary scales envisaged. This information would give us some idea of the calibre of persons being sought and


the time for which these persons would be expected to serve.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. McManus: The hon. Member accused my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) of being a master of the misleading; but the hon. Member has strived to be equally a master of the misleading. He attempted to tell the Committee that the Derry Commission was an executive body. While it had certain powers, it was directly responsible to Stormont. The proof of that comes out clearly in a very well known case in which the Derry Commission appointed a man called Paddy Docherty to a highly paid position and the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Mr. Brian Faulkner, cancelled the appointment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: For what reason?

Mr. McManus: Because he was a Catholic. [Interruption.]

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): Order. I do not think that we want to go into the history of what happened. We are looking to the future here. Although references to what has happened in the past are permissible, we ought not to go into the detailed history.

Mr. Pounder: I shall take your guidance, Sir Stephen, and come to the two Amendments to which I wish to refer, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. They are in no way contradictory one with the other. Yesterday the Secretary of State designate said that he was looking for men with experience, responsibility and knowledge to serve on the Commission. I take the same view as my hon. Friends, that it is an unworkable creation. That it should advise the Secretary of State is unattractive but fair enough. To give it assistance is going a little far, perhaps, in that, as I understand it, it could lead to the establishment in some form of some kind of mini-executive rôle for the Commission. This may not be intended. If it is not, why have such a word in the Schedule at all?
The Secretary of State-designate said yesterday, in answer to an abrasive remark of mine on the subject of the Commission, that he, as the future Secretary of State, accepts full responsibilities for any decisions that Commis-

sion may take, and one accepts this without reservation. At the same time, the Secretary of State-designate is adding to his already very considerable burdens by having this sort of creature but ultimately having overall responsibility for whatever decisions it may take. We do not know, for instance, how many people are envisaged as members of the Commission. Will it be very small, half a dozen, or midi-size, nine or 10? Or will it be quite a large structure of 15 or 16 members? We do not know. At present we are being asked in a sense to give blanket approval for the creation of this Commission without necessarily having much idea of what is involved.
I conclude on a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). It is an immensely dangerous exercise to empower a Commission with the examination of any legislation which it is envisaged will come before the House of Commons by means of an Order in Council. I do not want to be too cynical about some of the people who I suspect may be invited to serve. It is unfair to use parliamentary privilege for that sort of exercise. It is tempting, but I shall resist temptation.
But there are three forms which a Commission could possibly take. The first is a Commission composed of politicians of some kind. We understand that this is not a starter. Secondly, there is the idea of a commission of civil servants, of heads of existing departments in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. This, at any rate, would make some sense. But, as one understands the Commission, it will be of eminent lay persons unrelated to politics or the Civil Service, and not only is the concept of a Commission throughly bad and undesirable but the form that it will take, in that it is unlikely to have politicians or civil servants as members, is the worst of all worlds.
I commend Amendments Nos. 22 and 23.

Mr. Channon: I wonder whether I might intervene in the debate at this stage. It has been an extremely important debate. There may have been some misunderstanding about what is suggested to be the rôle of the Commission set out in Schedule 1. I shall try to answer some of the points which have


been put forward on this matter, and shall seek to allay some of the anxieties.
The body which it is proposed should be set up is a small body to advise my right hon. Friend. It is not an executive body; it has no executive powers whatever. It is not a legislative body; it has no legislative powers. It is a wholly advisory body which is to be set up for a short period of time and to which my right hon. Friend can turn for advice. He will not turn only to that body for advice. My right hon. Friend has made it clear—indeed it is self-evident—that he will wish to seek advice from every quarter He hopes to go to Northern Ireland to start getting some of this advice at a very early date. There is no intention that the advisory Commission is to be the only or main source of advice for my right hon. Friend. I do not think a reading of the Schedule would lead one to believe that it would be the only source of advice, but I have heard that suggested.
My right hon. Friend will receive advice from civil servants as well; that will be one source of advice. There will be plenty of other advice from people in all walks of life who will wish to advise my right hon. Friend. I suspect that he may get too much advice rather than too little. What my right hon. Friend would like to do is to have a small advisory body with no executive functions and no legal functions to which he could turn for advice on a number of matters.
A number of hon. Members referred to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday on Second Reading. I should like to refer to the passage in which he said:
I wish to make it clear that the Commission will assist by way of advice and consultation, but neither the Commission collectively nor individual members of it acting as such will discharge any executive functions in Northern Ireland.…But I think it is right that we should seek to get people of experience, knowledge and responsibility who can help us to help the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, I shall not look only to the Commission for help and advice. I hope to get it from many quarters, and I hope to make myself personally accessible to as many strands of opinion as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March 1972; Vol. 834, c. 243.]
That remains my right hon. Friend's view. He feels it would be of assistance to him to have this small body which would be able to give him advice.
I shall deal with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and will then deal with the Amendments in turn. My hon. Friend asked whether my right hon. Friend will receive advice from other sources, and I think I have already answered that point. He also asked how often the Commission will sit, what kind of persons it will contain, and how many.
My right hon. Friend's mind is open as to the number of people serving on the Commission. He has the idea that it should be a small body to help him. I would think that the number he has in mind would be about a dozen members, but he would not wish to be tied to any particular number. It would be small enough to allow ordinary discussion but large enough to get the advice he hopes to obtain.
How often will it meet? That depends on the work of the Commission and how much my right hon. Friend seeks its advice and how the whole thing works out. It is difficult to say with any great accuracy at this stage how often the Commission will sit.
How much will members be paid? There is a specific Amendment dealing with payment. The Committee will see that under paragraph (5) of the Schedule the Secretary of State has the power—he does not have to do this—to pay members of the Commission out of moneys provided by Parliament such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend has no intention of making lavish allowances or paying lavish remuneration. I very much doubt whether the Minister for the Civil Service would allow him to do so, and that may well be a check imposed upon my right hon. Friend in the unlikely event of his being tempted to pay people vast sums of money. [Interruption.] I cannot promise that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will be invited to serve on the Commission. It is not for me to say. If the Commission is established it would be agreed that it must be right that its members should be paid reasonable expenses and allowances.
What kind of persons will be on the Commission? My right hon. Friend said yesterday that at this stage he was not


ruling out anyone. He wants to get the best advice, from as wide a variety of representative people in the community as possible, to help in what the Committee must consider to be an extremely important and difficult task. That is all the Commission is intended to achieve. The appointments are of people with a personal stake in Northern Ireland. They have to be people resident there. We will deal with that later.
I turn to the other Amendments—

Mr. Powell: Before doing that, would my hon. Friend clear up something puzzling me? It appears from the Schedule that there is a statutory requirement that this Commission shall be in existence from the first moment that the Statute is operative. It says:
So long as…this Act has effect, there shall be a body".
Presumably the Act starts to have effect when the Royal Assent is given. [Interruption.] Yes, it is right, it is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to ask the Attorney-General. It is what the Bill says. What is puzzling is why, since this Commission has to exist from about tonight onwards or as soon afterwards as may be, the hon. Member should have so little idea of who is to compose it, what it is about, and what its members are to be paid. These people will have to be appointed and be in office today to comply with statutory requirements. The other alternative appears to be that my right hon. Friend has not divulged names to my hon. Friend so that he cannot enlighten the Committee. Could he clear that up?

Mr. Channon: I think my right hon. Friend misheard what I was saying to the Attorney-General. I was saying something quite different from what he has in mind.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Surely Ministers are allowed to ask the advice of the Attorney-General?

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Channon: I thought that was the purpose of my right hon. and learned Friend's presence. I am seeking advice, but my right hon. Friend thought I said something and used a form of words which I did not use. However, it is a small matter and perhaps I should not have mentioned it.
I am advised that what my right hon. Friend is entitled to do if Parliament passes the Bill is to appoint a body to be known as the Northern Ireland Commission. There is no requirement on him to have it in operation from tonight or from the minute the Bill comes into force. But once he appoints a Northern Ireland Commission, it should be in existence for so long as Clause 1 has effect, and we have earlier discussed how long that should be.
I am entitled to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that my right hon. Friend the Lord President has not decided these important matters and that he wants to go to Northern Ireland if the House will allow him, with a free hand to consider these matters, and what has been said here. That is one purpose of debate in the Committee, as my right hon. Friend knows better than most. I can assure him that the Lord President has made no decisions on this. If he had, I would convey them to the Committee and would not seek to mislead hon. Members. I am sure that he does not suggest that I have, but I have consulted my right hon. Friend about the terms of the Amendment and about the important Amendments which have been put forward by my hon. Friends. Amendment No. 20 is in the name of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). He suggests that as an alternative to the Commission there should be a committee of all hon. Members for Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend gave an assurance to the Committee that he would consult through the usual channels and also with hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on the proper way of handling our business and legislation in future in the present extraordinary circumstances.
I am not sure that the best solution would be a Committee of the House. It may, but all I say is that I will consider carefully the suggestion put forward and consult the Lord President and he will consult with those engaged in this matter on what should be a happy solution to deal with the problem with which we are confronted.
If we are to have changes along some of these lines, they can be done by legislation by the House and there is no need


for them to be incorporated into this legislation.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) raised the question whether it was right to place a statutory duty to consult about legislaion on this point. The statutory duty, as the Schedule says, is on a proposal for an Order in Council. The Secretary of State, however, does not have a complete statutory duty to consult the committee, and if it appears to him impractical, by reason of urgency, or otherwise, to do so, my right hon. Friend does not have the duty of consulting the Commission before coming to conclusions about legislation.
However, I do not seek to disguise from the Committee that it would normally be the practice for my right hon. Friend to wish to have their advice, but also the advice of other people. He wishes to consult very fully with people in the Province about legislation and everything else.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South also raised the question of Statutory Instruments passed by the Northern Irish Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend will be dealing with the whole question of Statutory Instruments in debate on a later Amendment, and perhaps he will deal with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South.

Mr. Buck: My hon. Friend has not quite explained to my mind why he thinks it is necessary that this duty should be laid upon my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Channon: I have not completed my remarks on that point. I interposed the point on Statutory Instruments in case I forgot it. It is my right hon. Friend's view that he would like to have the opportunity of consulting this Commission, which he hopes will be a sensible and wise body able to give him good advice about legislation which may be put forward. He has given to the Committee an assurance that he will be very reluctant indeed to enter upon any new legislation, apart from the special categories he mentioned—legislation in the pipeline, or legislation for which there must be very special reasons.
Moreover, I must point out that there will be opportunities open to hon. Mem-

bers in this House of Commons to deal with legislation which comes before us, and there will be consultations through the usual channels and with my hon. Friends and other Members representing Northern Irish constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) pointed out that in the final analysis it will be for this House of Commons to accept, or not, any legislation. The House will decide on the merits of the case whether or not it should pass any legislation which may be put before it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) said we should think very hard about this matter and about the consequences of the Commission and of the sort of effect it would have. I well understand the fears which have been mentioned throughout our debates today. I well understand the sort of reactions people initially had to the idea of the Commission. However, it would be very much better if, before coming to any final conclusion, people took a breathing space to consider the implications as a whole of the suggestion to have the Commission.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: My hon. Friend is very lucid and careful, but what I think he has not yet fully explained, and what I cannot quite understand, is the question, mentioned yet again a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), why the Minister should so wish to have this mandatory Commission. It seems to us, in view of the reaction which has been manifested to this proposal, that he may be inviting humiliation. It would seem extremely unwise.

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend, as always, puts his point very fairly indeed. It is my right hon. Friend's view that it would be right for him, before entering upon legislation, unless there are special reasons which I have outlined to the Committee, to refer it to the Commission, because he would like to have its advice. As I have tried to explain, he will be perfectly free to accept, perfectly free to reject, its advice. It is in no way binding upon him. The Commission is not a legislative body. My right hon. Friend can listen to the Commission, but he does not have to accept its advice, but, on the other hand, if he thinks its advice is sensible, he may accept it.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend is taking a great deal of trouble to answer the debate, but I do not think he has really got the point. This Amendment is not seeking to deny to the Minister the right to put any proposed legislation or anything else for advice before this curious Commission. We are not seeking to do that. What we are seeking to do is to give him a free hand, for which he is asking. What we are trying to take from him is the duty of having to do so. He may not in the end want the Commission; he may not in the end trust the Commission; he may not in the end want the Commission to see his draft legislation. Why should the duty be put on him to have the Commission?

Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend is very anxious that he should consult the Commission in cases of this kind, and he believes it is right that he should have this duty placed upon him to consult it. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I understand hon. Members' feelings about the matter. I hope they will not necessarily make too much of this point. My right hon. Friend is free to reject or accept the Commission's advice according to what seems to him to be the correct course of action in any particular case. He has made it perfectly clear that he is responsible not to any Commission but to the House for any legislation brought before the House. It is this House that decides whether or not to accept the legislation. All that my right hon. Friend does is to consult the Commission; he is not bound by its views. He has made it very clear that he wants to take the House into his confidence, and he has indicated his willingness to enter into consultations as to how the House should be even better able to carry out this legislative process than under the present arrangements under the Bill.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend's motive is not in question. What is in question is the necessity of warding so that the provision is obligatory. There might be two good reasons. One is if, in order for my right hon. Friend to show the Commission a proposed Order in Council, it is necessary for him to have statutory power to oblige it to consider it. The other is the fear that, if he were not given this statutory power, members of the Commission might try to refuse to give him advice on some-

thing he had referred to them. If either of those was the reason, I can understand the necessity for writing the obligation in. Otherwise, I find it very difficult to understand why it must be in, when we know he will consult the Commission anyway.

Mr. Channon: I should be misleading the Committee if I told my hon. Friend those were the prime considerations in my right hon. Friend's mind in reaching this decision, but if such a situation as my hon. Friend has outlined occurred, my right hon. Friend would be saved by the statutory duty placed upon him.
Rightly or wrongly, my right hon. Friend takes the view that he would like to be placed under the duty to refer the proposals to the Commission for its advice. He is only under a duty to refer them to the Commission. He does not have to accept its advice. He can partially accept and partially reject the advice. It has no binding force upon him. The object is to provide my right hon. Friend with a sounding board of a small Commission, which I hope it will be possible to set up, of good people who can give him wise, sound advice.
I discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend, because I knew of the feelings of the Committee before the debate began. It remains his view that he would like to be under this duty in order that he may consult the Commission about all those matters that will have to come before it when there is new legislation, as there inevitably will be of some kind, which will eventually have to be brought before the House.
6.15 a.m.
I will deal with a few other points which hon. Members have raised—

Rev. Ian Paisley: Under the terms of the Bill the Secretary of State will be obliged to consult the Commission. Knowing the way politics work in Northern Ireland, I ask this question. Suppose an unpopular decision were taken by the Secretary of State, it would be a tragedy if the Commission totally disagreed with what the Secretary of State did. Because the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the Commission, the Commission would feel that it had an obligation to society to make its position clear and might run into further difficulties. If the Amendment were accepted


the Commission would be only asked for advice and there would be no obligation on the Secretary of State.

Mr. Channon: I understand the point. There is a risk that occasionally the Commission may disagree with the course proposed. That is an inevitable risk with any advisory body.
I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on the question of assistance and whether the words are so drawn as to give the Commission too great a power. The words "and assistance" do not make a great deal of difference to the sense of the Schedule, but if it will help hon. Members I shall be perfectly happy to remove the words "and assistance" to make it crystal clear that it is the duty of the Commission to give advice and that it has no executive rôle beyond the duty of giving advice.
I am sorry if I have not been able to convince all hon. Members of the Committee of the wisdom of the proposal. My right hon. Friend has considered the matter carefully and he believes it is right that there should be a Commission and that he himself should be placed under the duty to consult it.

Mr. McMaster: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he reply to my point about using Members of Parliament on the Commission?

Mr. Channon: As I have said, my right hon. Friend has not ruled out anyone from consideration as a member of the Commission. The idea that the whole membership of the present Northern Ireland Parliament should be appointed to the Commission is an entirely different proposition. What is being put forward is a small advisory body responsible for giving advice to my right hon. Friend. I do not think, with respect, that my right hon. Friend would wish the whole body of the Northern Irish Parliament to reform and take on a different function as a Commission. The Government have come to the conclusion to have this Bill and to have the new powers put upon the Government here. It would not be right just to "de-prorogue" the Stormont Parliament in order to re-create it in another form for a short term. I cannot

advise the Committee to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Commission should consist of elected Members of the Northern Irish Parliament.
Having considered the matter carefully, my right hon. Friend remains firmly of the view that he would like to have put upon him the duty to refer to the Commission the proposals set out in this subsection. My right hon. Friend is anxious that the Commission should be set up in this way and the Committee may feel, in view of the terrible responsibilities he has to face, that it would be right to allow him to have the Commission which he feels may be of assistance to him.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I have listened carefully to the debate. One thing seems to me to be clear. It is that whether this Commission will prove to be a dog's breakfast or not will depend on the quality of the men who can be attracted to serve upon it. What the right hon. Gentleman is seeking is assistance from men of standing, ability and quality in Northern Ireland, and we know there are many there. I would have thought it the duty of Loyalists in this Committee and outside to rally to the side and support of the right hon. Gentleman in this situation, and, so far from decrying and making a nonsense of the Commission, encourage the idea of co-operation in this time of grave crisis in which Northern Ireland finds itself locked. Instead of their denouncing potential volunteers in advance as merely bought men attracted by the "lolly", one would have hoped for a different line in which they would have appealed to their colleagues of standing and quality to come forward and serve. That is my reaction to the debate. I am rather shocked by the approach of one or two hon. Members opposite from whom I would have expected a more responsible public approach.
I think that the addition of the words "and assistance" to the words "give advice" adds nothing and that the point taken in the Amendment is utterly trivial. However, if the Minister has seen fit to give way on it, that is a matter for him. But we are dealing with a triviality there and I am surprised that one or two hon. Members normally of considerable intellectual acumen should have lent themselves to such a debate at six o'clock in the morning in order to make a meretricious point of criticism. However, I had


better not be too meretricious myself, otherwise I shall be in trouble.
The other aspect of the matter is not trivial and presents problems. This concerns the latter part of paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. I am sure that it has given concern to hon. Members opposite because on the face of it it begins with the phrase,
…it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State…
which clearly implies a mandatory duty. However, the mandatory nature of the matter is highly qualified because it goes on,
…unless in any case it appears to him impracticable by reason of urgency or otherwise so to do, to refer to the Commission for their advice any proposal to recommend to Her Majesty the making of an Order in Council…
So the Secretary of State is not really a prisoner of the mandatory provision to the extent that some hon. Members thought he was. In any matter of urgency he does not have to consult the Commission at all and in other circumstances he need not consult it. So he is not fully imprisoned by the language of the provision. I imagine that the purpose of including what I can only describe as a qualifiedly mandatory provision is to encourage the idea that this is not merely a dictator acting on his own whim and at his own discretion, but a Minister seriously concerned to seek and obtain the best advice available to him in Northern Ireland in regard to the appalling burden of responsibility that Parliament is inviting him to shoulder.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) conjured up the horrid situation that the Secretary of State could not start to operate until he had the Commission in being. It seems from paragraph 1(2) that the Secretary of State has abundant latitude as to when he may make the appointment. It says that he may "from time to time determine" who shall serve on the Commission. I should have thought that the opening words of paragraph 1(1),
So long as section 1 of this Act has effect…
were limiting words—[Interruption.] Apparently the right hon. Gentleman does not agree. He may have another view. For what it is worth, this is my view. It

is a limiting factor indicating that a point may come when it is decided that the Commission shall no longer operate and that the whole machinery set up in this Act, including the setting up of the Commission, shall be terminated. In other words, when the time comes for that machinery to be terminated, the appointment of the Commissioners terminates as well.
I do not share the anxieties which have been expressed about the language of paragraph 1, and I should have thought that in this extraordinary and unprecedented situation, it was desirable that the Secretary of State should be assisted by a Commission. Certainly a Commission is better than nothing.
I hope that it will not be regarded as impertinent if I say that the message should go out from this House appealing to all men of good will in Northern Ireland to rally to help in the situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself.

Mr. Powell: I will only revert to the point which I raised in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, namely, the meaning of the initial words of the paragraph. I do not think that it is entirely a triviality. As I understand it, my hon. Friend said that those words did not mean that it was necessary for the Commission to be in existence from the moment that Section 1 had effect. That was also the view, apparently, of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who said that he thought that all it meant was that once there was a Commission, it must continue as long as Section 1 had effect.
I am afraid that that is impossible. Three of the operative provisions of the Bill are exactly in this form. Clause 1(1) says:
So long as this section has effect, the Secretary of State shall act as chief executive officer…".
Subsection (2) says:
So long as this section has effect, the Attorney-General…shall…be Attorney-General for Northern Ireland…
Subsection (3) says:
So long as this section has effect, the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall stand prorogued…".


Is my hon. Friend saying that it is a matter of choice when the Parliament of Northern Ireland starts to stand prorogued? This is very important. The interpretation which he places on the words on page 3 must presumably be the same as the interpretation of the identical words on pages 1 and 2.
6.30 a.m.
If my hon. Friend, contrariwise, says that the meaning of the operative Clause is that, from the moment of the Bill having effect, those results follow—namely, the executive office of my right hon. Friend, the office of my right hon. and learned Friend, and the standing prorogued of the Northern Ireland Parliament—it follows that it is a necessary requirement which my right hon. Friend is imposing upon himself by statute that, from the same moment, there shall be a Commission. True the Commission can be of the form, size, and so on, that my right hon. Friend decides; but there has to be a Commission as from the coming into effect of Clause 1.
There is, therefore, a real difficulty here. If my hon. Friend leaves it as he has done, he will cast doubt on the effect of the substantive provisions of the Bill itself. This is not a trivial point, because it shows how right my hon. Friends have been to urge that the Secretary of State designate should not impose this upon himself as an obligation. My hon. Friend has got himself into the hopeless difficulty that he is in in the interpretation of this line by the insistence of his right hon. Friend in making this mandatory. It was quite unnecessary for this provision to be mandatory, as my hon. Friends have been arguing for the last hour or so. How unnecessary it is and how embarrassing is clear from the fact that the explanation given by my hon. Friend

cannot possibly stand in the context of the Bill as a whole.

Captain Orr: I had hoped that we might get through the business of the Commission without a Division, save perhaps on the Schedule as a whole. I thought that I had shown my hon. Friend the way out. However, we have now been told that the mandatory provision must stand. It surprises me that the only reason that we have been given for it is that the Minister wants it. We have not been told why the Secretary of State designate wants the thing to be mandatory.
Of course, this underlines the point and the reason for the observations I made, for which the right hon. and learned Gentleman chided me. No one would object to an advisory commission. All men of good will would seek to join an advisory commission if it were thought that it would be helpful. What is peculiarly obnoxious is the removal of an elected Parliament and its replacement by a Commission which only it is mandatory for the Minister to consult. This is why the Commission is obnoxious; this is why it has no hope at all.
With great reluctance, I advise my hon. Friends that we should allow Amendment No. 20 to go, but that we should proceed to a Division on Amendment No. 23.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 3, line 7, leave out "and assistance".

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page3, line 9, leave out from "them" to end of sub-paragraph (i).—[Captain Orr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 131.

Division No. 109.]
AYES
[6.35 a.m.


Biggs-Davison, John
Maude, Angus
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Braine, Bernard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Buck, Antony
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Chichester-Clark, R.
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Mr. Stanley McMaster and


Kilfedder, James
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. James Molyneaux


Maginnis, John E.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Boscawen, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Astor, John
Bowden, Andrew
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)


Atkins, Humphrey
Bray, Ronald
Carlisle, Mark


Benyon, W.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Channon, Paul


Biffen, John
Bryan, Paul
Chapman, Sydney




Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hornby, Richard
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clegg, Walter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Redmond, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, David (Guildford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dalyell, Tam
Jopling, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Skinner, Dennis


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Kinsey, J. R.
Spearing, Nigel


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Spence, John


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Sproat, Iain


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stallard, A. W.


Eyre, Reginald
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Farr, John
Luce, R. N.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
MacArthur, Ian
Sutcliffe, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
McManus, Frank
Tebbit, Norman


Fowler, Norman
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thatcher, Rt.Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fox, Marcus
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol
Trew, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Waddington, David


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Weatherill, Bernard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernle
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles
Whitehead, Philip


Gurden, Harold
Murton, Oscar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Normanton, Tom
Worsley, Marcus


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley



Havers, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Tim Fortescue and



Peel, John
Mr. Paul Hawkins.



Percival, Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kilfedder: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 13, after 'and', insert:
'after consultation with the police authority and representatives of the Royal Ulster Constabulary'
I intend to deal with this matter briefly. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Orme: And on the hon. Member's side.

Mr. Kilfedder: And on this side of the Committee—agree with that. One ought not to forget the rôle which the Royal Ulster Constabulary has played and can continue to play in the life of Northern Ireland. It is a force which since the creation of Ulster, despite all allegations made against it, has played a very noble rôle. One historian who is knowledgeable about police work in various parts of the world has said that the R.U.C is worthy of commendation and has the highest detection rate of any police force in the British Isles.

6.45 a.m.

Much has been said about the R.U.C. It has suffered much by way of slander from Republicans. Members of the force have been shot at; they have been murdered. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland designate goes to Northern Ireland, he should remember the rôle that the R.U.C. plays. I think I speak for all my colleagues from Northern Ireland when I say that we have nothing but the greatest admiration for their work. I believe that this feeling is shared by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

When the Secretary of State designate has to make regulations under this Schedule, he should seek the advice of the police authority. One of the failures of the last Administration in 1968–69 lay in the instructions which many people believed had been given—perhaps they had not been given—that the Army should ignore the police in Northern Ireland. The result was that the police were isolated. If the Army had sought the advice of the police, the trouble would not have escalated as it did, and we


would not now be in this situation requiring legislation which radically alters the democratic régime of a part of the United Kingdom.

Therefore my right hon. Friend, who goes with the best wishes of the House of Commons to undertake this task in Northern Ireland, should appreciate the importance of his consulting the police authority and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Much has been said, and no doubt will be said, by way of attacks upon the R.U.C. None the less it is a force which, although it has taken so much in the past, is capable of taking much more and yet serving the community—not just one section, but both sections, of the community. It is right, before we pass from this part of the Schedule, to place on record our appreciation of the work of the R.U.C.

Mr. McNamara: When the Secretary of State designate visits Northern Ireland, he should ponder well the words just spoken by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I urge the right hon. Gentleman to remember the peculiar loyalties and traditions of the R.U.C. Regard has been paid to its high detection rate. We know exactly what happened the night that Samuel Devenney was bludgeoned. We have yet to find the policemen who bludgeoned him so badly that he eventually died.

Mr. McMaster: Inview of what has been said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) I feel that I must make a brief contribution.
The rôle of the police has been above commendation in the trouble and riots. It started nearly three years ago with continuous rioting, particularly in Londonderry. On 27th July, 1969, the rioters went through the centre of the town, damaging and looting and when the crisis came to a head on 12th August—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman more than I can help but I do not think we want on this Amendment to go back on the history of the past. This is a question of consulting the police about the future.

Mr. McMaster: I take the point, Sir Stephen, but this is relevant to what we are discussing and has a bearing on those who should be consulted. For three days the police were savagely attacked with petrol bombs. More than 400 policemen were seriously injured and many killed—

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member starts a debate on this theme, he will invite other speeches from other parts of the Committee and the debate will be prolonged. It is better to get on with the debate that should be under discussion.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a serious attack on the conduct of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Surely that should be allowed to be answered on the Floor of the House.

The Temporary Chairman: I noted the brief remark by the hon. Member, and if he had gone on I would have called him to order as well. I am anxious to get on to the subject of the Amendment. I do not want to wander far from it.

Mr. McMaster: The rôle of the police is vital. Their attitude in the past has been above praise. They have suffered the gravest injuries and losses. Many have been killed on duty. They have not returned fire in Londonderry in spite of very vicious attacks—even in contrast to what happened on "Bloody Sunday".
With a record like this and with a high detection rate that is praised throughout the United Kingdom, I feel my right hon. Friend would do well to accept the Amendment and consult representatives of a body of men which, in spite of the attacks, has a tremendous morale.

Mr. Channon: I think the whole Committee knows well the gallant rôle that the police have played in Northern Ireland and the ghastly trials and tribulations they have undergone. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State designate should be required to consult the police authority and representatives of the R.U.C. about proposals to make regulations under the Bill. But I ask my hon. Friend to be kind enough not to press his Amendment because my right hon. Friend would wish to consult the appropriate bodies about such regulations.


There might be the need to consult still more bodies. I do not think it would be appropriate to make this a statutory requirement.
If the regulations are in prospect on matters in which the police can be expected to wish to express views, I can give an absolute assurance that they will be consulted in the normal way. A similar assurance would apply to the police in Britain on any occasion when they might be expected to have a view, and I shall certainly ensure that they are fully consulted.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am sorry that my hon. Friend cannot find it possible to accept the Amendment. However, in view of what he says I do not intend to press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain Orr: I beg to move, Amendment No. 29, in page 3, line 19, leave out from 'unless' to end of line 20 and insert:
'he has been at the time of his appointment ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland for a minimum of seven years'

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Stephen McAdden): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 30, in line 20, at end insert:
'and is prepared to swear an Oath of Allegiance'.

Captain Orr: Amendment No. 29 is a comparatively small Amendment and need not occupy the Committee for too long. We have been making fairly good progress.
The point of the Amendment is fairly simple. It deals with the membership of the Commission. As earlier Amendments have been rejected—and provided that the Schedule stands as part of the Bill—we shall have a Commission which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State designate has the mandatory duty to consult on all questions of legislation. Therefore, the membership of the Commission becomes exceedingly important. At present the only qualification for membership is that a person be at the time of appointment "ordinarily resident."
However, a man can take up ordinary residence fairly rapidly and it may be of

fairly short duration. The Amendment seeks to provide that the Commission is selected from persons who have been ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland for a minimum period of seven years. I admit that the period of seven years is arbitrary, but I have selected it because that is the qualification for the franchise for election to Parliament at Stormont. Therefore, that period has a highly respectable ancestry. One cannot appear on the electoral register to vote for the Parliament of Northern Ireland unless one has been a resident there for seven years.
That is perfectly proper. It prevents people coming to Northern Ireland and almost overnight appearing on an electoral register and voting. One ought to have some term of residence to qualify a person to serve on the Commission. I am not necessarily wedded to the period of seven years; I am simply explaining why I have selected it.
We need not make heavy weather of it. What kind of persons does the Minister envisage as members of the Commission? If advice is to be sought on this highly formal basis, it is important that it should be sought from persons who are Northern Ireland persons and not people recently brought in or who have recently moved there. It is exceedingly important that the members should come from what I might call the indigenous population.

Mr. Kilfedder: It is extraordinary that because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is putting before the Committee an Amendment about reasonable qualification, an hon. Member opposite should say that he does not want anyone on the Commission.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: rose—

Mr. Kilfedder: Only a small percentage of people would be excluded because of the suggested qualification.
I come to the Amendment in my name, Amendment No. 30, which would provide that the members of the Commission should be prepared to swear an oath of allegiance. That is not unreasonable. The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) laughs because she find an oath of allegiance amusing.

7.0 a.m.

Miss Devlin: The hon. Gentleman is following the fine traditions of his party in continually referring to the fact that I take the oath of allegiance lightly. What amuses me is not the way in which I regard the taking of the oath of allegiance but the way in which hon. Members opposite take an oath of allegiance to their own prejudices and think of it as something entirely different.

Mr. Kilfedder: We know that the hon. Lady treats the oath of allegiance lightly, and I think that that is wrong. When an hon. Member takes an oath of allegiance he takes it sincerely. He subscribes to it as a Member of this Parliament, and a similar oath of allegiance is taken by hon. Members in the Stormont Parliament. I am saying that if the Commission is to take the place of a democratically elected body, its members should also take the oath. This does not present a stumbling block to anybody who wishes to serve Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole. I am sure there are hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who would agree that this is a reasonable request and I trust that the Government will accept the Amendment.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Miss Devlin: I wish to speak briefly on the question of the oath of allegiance. Many hon. Members in the House no doubt will be fooled by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). We have only to look at events in Northern Ireland in the past two days to see the futile dichotomy which exists about allegiance when people say "God save the Queen", take the oath of allegiance and then say "We shall fight the British Army". That is the sort of mentality shown by any hon. Gentleman who raises this question of allegiance.
It happens to be an emotional question in the North of Ireland and I ask the Secretary of State designate to take it into account. He will not be aware of the extent to which the oath of allegiance permeates and controls the lives of people in Northern Ireland. A school teacher in the North of Ireland—unlike school teachers in this country—cannot teach in a school, cannot be paid a salary for the

work he does in a school, until he takes the oath of allegiance. Nor can a person even put a broom over the floor of any Ministry, or do any road relief schemes for a Ministry, until he has taken the oath of allegiance.
The way this works in Northern Ireland is not on the basis of its being a perpetuation of a monarchy or a particular system. To the majority of people in this House, it is a sincere pledge to do what one considers to be one's duty in the best interests of society as a whole. In Northern Ireland, however, it is regarded in a twofold way. It is an oath of allegiance not to Britain and the monarchy, but to the position of privilege of the Unionist Party. It is seen as a further means by which members, not of a majority Catholic population, but of the minority Republican population can further be humiliated in getting jobs as menial as sweeping the Ministry's roads.

Mr Fitt: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) seeks to place a restriction on the members of the Commission by imposing on them a seven-year residence qualification in Northern Ireland. It must be remembered that commissions in past years which have been set up to look into the affairs of Northern Ireland included people such as Lord Cameron who certainly had no residence qualification in Northern Ireland. Their reports have been a damning indictment of what has been happening in Northern Ireland.
One reason why there has been such trouble in Northern Ireland has been the different standards applied there as opposed to other parts of the United Kingdom. If a resident of the Irish Republic were to come and live in London no restriction would be placed on that person. He could have his name placed on the electoral register and take up whatever appointment was offered to him. Restrictions are placed on such persons by the Northern Ireland Government because they do not want persons coming from the Republic whom they suspect of being hostile to the Unionists.

Mr. John Farr: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Republic of Ireland now, not London. He will be aware that a person can live in the Republic for a lifetime and not get a place on the electoral register.

Mr. Fitt: As I understand it there is an arrangement whereby they can be placed on the register if they so desire. The Secretary of State designate is to assume responsibilities for Northern Ireland affairs and it is highly unlikely that he will appoint Sean MacStiofain or Cathal Goulding to serve on this Commission. This is undoubtedly what is activating the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. I do not think there is any possibility of the Secretary of State-designate going to such lengths. It is a spurious argument which should be rejected.

Mr. David Howell: The effect of Amendment No. 29 is to require that any person appointed to the Commission shall have satisfied the condition that at the time of his appointment he shall have been ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland for a minimum of seven years. It seemed appropriate to the Government that persons sitting on the Commission should have close links with Northern Ireland and we have therefore provided in the Bill that they should be ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland. This gives sufficient flexibility since it is still possible for someone to be appointed who may be living elsewhere, provided that Northern Ireland is his normal home.
The effect of the Amendment is to cut away this flexibility. It has the undesirable effect of making it appear that a person who has been ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland for less than seven years is thereby not the sort of person who ought to be closely concerned with Northern Irish affairs. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was quite frank and open in admitting that this was a somewhat arbitrary limit and on reflection he will, I believe, recognise the truth, of that.
He asked what sort of people would be on the Commission. As my hon. Friend and I have said repeatedly through the night, my right hon. Friend wishes to keep an open mind on the precise nature and character of the people who will come on to the Commission. He and my hon. Friend have emphasised that we shall want wise people, of the highest quality and integrity, and we intend to seek them. To go beyond that would be to prejudge decisions which have yet to be made.
Amendment No. 30 makes it necessary for a member of the Commission to be prepared to swear an oath of allegiance. This can only make things difficult for Commission. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows better than I, there are a number of advisory bodies in Northern Ireland, and I know of no such regulation applying to them. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to devise a form of oath which was not bound to offend some section of the Irish community and thus to undermine the whole purpose of the exercise. Such a provision would make it difficult to persuade representatives of a wide section of opinion in Northern Ireland to help my right hon. Friend in the discharge of his onerous duties by serving on the Commission. In the light of those points, I ask both my hon. Friends to be so good as to withdraw their proposed Amendments.

Captain Orr: I am not entirely satisfied and I do not imagine that my hon. Friend expected me to be satisfied, with what he said about residence qualifications. Surely he could have considered some term of years which would have made it quite plain that those on the Commission really belonged to the indigenous population. Nevertheless, I said at the beginning that I did not intend to make heavy weather of this, and as we have made good progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, I shall have to put the Question on the Amendment afterwards.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I hope that the Government Front Bench realise that only those brought up in the Northern Ireland situation can make a valid contribution to what is going on in Northern Ireland. Many people come in who do not know but have hazy-crazy, airy-fairy ideas of ways in which to settle the problem. I hope that the Front Bench will keep that in mind.
Only those brought up in the Northern Ireland situation understand how it can be settled. The first consideration for the Secretary of State designate is not to concentrate on ways of getting a united


Ireland, as some would like, but to concentrate on how to get a united Ulster.
I do not know why hon. Members opposite are making such heavy weather of the oath of allegiance, because they have said over and over again that they take it as play actors. One of the most prominent members of the S.D.L.P., Mr. Austin Currie, said that he took the oath of allegiance as a play actor. If that is the way hon. Members treat the oath of allegiance, to ask them to take it is only adding irony to a bitter situation.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Has not the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) withdrawn the Amendment?

The Chairman: If an hon. Member rises to speak after that, debate must go on and I must put the Question—and it must be negatived, if that is what the Committee wishes.

Mr. McMaster: I have found this short debate unsatisfactory. A whole Parliament is being replaced by a Commission. We have no information about how many members are to serve on the Commission. It was indicated that it would be fairly small and perhaps some 20 are suggested. If we are to have only 20 members, with

the tremendous responsibility of advising the Secretary of State on which Orders in Council are necessary for the proper running of Northern Ireland in the interim period, it will be possible to find many ordinary residents—resident for some time—who will take an oath of allegiance, to the Queen and be prepared to stand and to fulfil the requirements suggested in these two Amendments. I suggest that my hon. Friend give more indication to the Committee of how many he expects will serve, for how many days a week and how many hours a day, and the volume of work with which they will have to deal.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Maginnis: I should like to ask one question only. Can the Minister give an assurance that those appointed to the Commission will not be members of illegal organisations?

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 3, line 20, at end insert:
'and is prepared to swear an Oath of Allegiance'.—[Mr. Kilfedder.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 114.

Division No. 110.]
AYES
[7.16 a.m.


Biggs-Davison, John
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Chichester-Clark, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. John E. Maginnis and


Kilfedder, James
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Pounder, Rafton



NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howell, David (Guildford)


Atkins, Humphrey
Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Benyon, W.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John


Biffen, John
Drayson, G. B.
James, David


Body, Richard
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Boscawen, Robert
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Andrew
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G.(E. Grinstead)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine


Buck, Antony
Fowler, Norman
Kinsey, J. R.


Burden, F. A.
Fox, Marcus
Knox, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gibson-Watt, David
Lane, David


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Channon, Paul
Gorst, John
Luce, R. N.


Chapman, Sydney
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
MacArthur, Ian


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gummer, J. Selwyn
McManus, Frank


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gurden, Harold
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)


Clegg, Walter
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mather, Carol


Concannon, J. D.
Havers, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cooke, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Moate, Roger


Coombs, Derek
Hayhoe, Barney
Money, Ernle


Cordle, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hornby, Richard
Normanton, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia
O'Halloran, Michael




Orme, Stanley
Russell, Sir Ronald
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Parkinson, Cecil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Waddington, David


Peel, John
Skinner, Dennis
Ward, Dame Irene


Percival, Ian
Spearing, Nigel
Weatherill, Bernard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Speed, Keith
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Raison, Timothy
Spence, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Sproat, Iain
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Redmond, Robert
Stallard, A. W.
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stanbrook, Ivor



Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Sutcliffe, John
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Maude: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 4, line 23, at end insert:
4. So long as the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall stand prorogued in accordance with section 1(3) of this Act, there shall be, in accordance with an Order in Council made under this Act, additional representation for Northern Ireland constituencies in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
The Amendment is to some extent exploratory, to discover the Government's long-term intentions about NorthernIrish representation. I understand why the Ulster Unionist Members did not feel able to add their names to it. They felt that this would be underlining the disappearance and possibly suggesting the permanent disappearance of Stormont. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide for the enlargement of the Ulster Unionist representation in the House of Commons for so long as the Stormont Parliament stands prorogued. I fully understand the difficulties which the Government and hon. Members may feel about this—

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Gentleman said that the purpose of the Amendment was to provide for an increase in the number of Ulster Unionist Members, but it may be that people of other political persuasions will be elected.

Mr. Maude: That was an accidentalslip—I meant to refer formally to my Ulster Unionist friends. Since it will be within the recollection of the Committee that I intervened on Second Reading to make sure that Ulster Members of all parties should be consulted by the Secretary of State designate, I think the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of seeking to make a distinction here.
Ulster Members here, of whatever party, will be faced with an enormous amount of work in the form of case work, dealing with legislation by Orders

in Council and consultation—whether or not a Select Committee of Ulster Members is set up here. It may be said that because Stormont will be prorogued for only one year it will be difficult to make these constitutional changes during that short period.
Why it is important that we should at least discover the intentions of the Government is that it was made clear in a debate on an earlier Amendment that the Government are not clear for how long the prorogation of Stormont by the Bill will last. The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) was first of the opinion that the Bill if it was renewed annually could only keep Stormont prorogued until the end of its life under the quinquennial Act. He then looked it up in a law book and thought again and came to the conclusion that the Bill might have the effect of prolonging the life of Stormont beyond its natural constitutional life under the quinquennial Act. I have put down an Amendment on Report to clarify this matter and make sure that the situation will not arise but I do not know whether it will be selected.
If there is a possibility that Stormont may go on in indefinite prorogation it is important for us to consider how the Ulster constituencies should be democratically represented and served. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) earlier referred to this question and said he thought that as there was only a prorogation there was no need for the boundaries to be changed. If my memory serves me, he also said that while there were a number of large constituencies in Ulster there were also some large constituencies in Great Britain and some small ones in Belfast. That is perfectly true. I do not think he or anyone could deny that if the people of Ulster were to be represented in the


Westminster Parliament in the same proportion as are the people of England, Wales and Scotland, the number of their representatives here—and one can work this out on different sets of figures—would probably be about 50 per cent. more than they have now. It might well be 16, 17, 18 or something of the sort.
7.30 a.m.
I think it is reasonable that we should ask the Government whether they are prepared for a situation in which, if they do not manage to get a settlement, as some of us fear they may not, within a period of a year, the people of Northern Ireland are left inadequately represented here and not represented at all at Stormont; and whether they are prepared to see Ulster Members, of whatever party, carrying what may well be an increasing load of case work and finding it extremely difficult to represent their constituents as hon. Members for Great Britain constituencies try to represent theirs. It is at least reasonable to ask the Government in these circumstances what their intention would be if the suspension of Stormont was carried on well beyond a period of one year. I do not propose to carry this Amendment to a Division, but it should be an opportunity for the Government to say how they foresee the representation of the people of Ulster being carried out in the House of Commons if Stormont remains indefinitely in suspension.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The electoral quota is higher in Northern Ireland, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). At the beginning, under the redistribution of seats Act of 1918, the Six Counties had 30 Members in this House of Commons. This was reduced first to 13 and then to 12, following abolition of the university seats Act of 1918, the Six Counties had reason for the first reduction was that there was a subordinate legislature taking over much of the work.
If integration were ever to be seriously considered in due course, we would have to put our minds to this question. The question of what is temporary has often exercised our minds. In the first instance, the Bill is for a year. But if ever we were to consider increasing the number of Members from Northern Ireland, it should not be done of itself but should

be considered in the wider United Kingdom context. It should be done not in a Bill of this kind but in a constitutional context in a constitutional Bill. This matter will therefore have to be left to the future, and I note that the hon. Member is not pressing the Amendment but intends it to be probing.
The fundamental point is the position that will have to be taken if and when we get to the point of considering integration. I have been studying the report of the Boundary Commissioners for Northern Ireland. The electoral quota, based on 1965—the base year for all the last boundary changes—is almost 75,000 for Northern Ireland, and it must be up 2,000 or so on the previous redistribution. In England the norm is 58,000—we know that is out of true already—in Wales 50,000, and in Scotland 47,000.There are some larger constituencies, of course.
It seems that in Wales, taking the County of Glamorgan as it exists today plus the County Boroughs of Swansea and Cardiff with 1½million people, there are 14 seats. In Wales the greater representation is because of the rural areas. But Glamorgan and the two county boroughs which I have mentioned give about the same number of seats as Northern Ireland—

Mr. Maude: Scotland is different.

Mr. Rees: Scotland is different I agree. There are differences in England, Wales and Scotland which ought also to be taken into account were we making a constitutional change of this kind. What matters is whether we ever get to the point of integration. There have been times during the night when the discussion has been such that one could wish it would never happen, but that is as it may be. Already some of my hon. Friends have been saying "Stormont's revenge." But it might come to a discussion about integration, and that would be the time to consider what we should do about Northern Ireland. We should not do it now.

Captain Orr: My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) has done us a service in raising this very important question. It must follow, if the Parliament of Northern Ireland were to cease to exist rather than be merely prorogued, that the membership


from Northern Ireland in this House of Commons would have to be increased.
My figures differ slightly from those of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), though they are not all that different. I do not recollect the source of his. If Northern Ireland were to be on exactly the same basis as Scotland, I reckon that would give us about 20 seats. If we were on the same basis as the United Kingdom average, which I make something like 62,000, that would give us about 16 seats. However, the United Kingdom average includes Northern Ireland, so perhaps the 16 is somewhat low. My hon. Friend's figure of 18 seats would be about the right number to consider.
However, this does not arise at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman says, and my hon. Friend is right not to press his Amendment to a Division. Plainly the Parliament of Northern Ireland has not come to an end. It has merely been prorogued by a temporary Measure. But it is important that this House of Commons should have before it the fact that, if it happens that the Parliament of Northern Ireland is brought to an end, it will mean that the representation from Northern Ireland here has to be increased, in ordinary simple equity.

Mr. Biffen: Though I appended my name to this Amendment, I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) underline that it was only an exploratory Amendment. I suppose we might look upon it as a sort of pre-breakfast appetiser.
None the less, it is important that we should consider it. Whatever one might feel about this legislation, it has become apparent again and again during the long night's debates that the parliamentary rôle in law making is being substantially, though temporarily, diminished. But if the temporary nature of the diminution proves to be a great deal more protracted than we have thought hitherto, we shall have to turn our minds to the question of enhanced parliamentary representation and a far greater authority for the legislature in the law-making processes which apply to Northern Ireland. It touches on the question of a more equitable representation for Northern Ireland than is now obtained from the existing 12 Members.
I confirm the arithmetic of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) that, taking the 1970 General Election, comparing the electorate and the number of seats for the component nations of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland had an electorate which averaged over 84,700 per Member elected, whereas Wales had 54,400 and Scotland had 51,200. Our experience of the representation from Wales and Scotland confirms that there is a premium, to some extent—I think quite rightly—accorded to those two countries on account of their remoteness from the central area of decision-taking. This healthy premium should therefore be accorded to Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland had the same electoral quota as is obtained by Scotland, it would come out with 20 seats. That would be equitable and would commend itself broadly to the House of Commons.
We must also consider another factor. On the whole, we may be given the choice between politics being conducted extra-parliamentary in Northern Ireland or parliamentary here. I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that at various stages during the night we may have felt that our history had come back to haunt us. None the less, if it is a choice between extra-parliamentary or parliamentary action, I will always choose parliamentary action.
I think that as a House here at Westminster we have benefited by the presence of the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). Suppose that their parliamentary activities had been confined to Stormont; suppose now, as a result of the events of the last 48 hours, that their voices could only be heard extra-parliamentary in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, we would be confronted with a situation where practically every major public spokesman in Northern Ireland would be outside the House of Commons, and I think that we would count that a major disadvantage.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: If we were getting to the point of considering integration, taking account of the events of the last three years and the fact that a third of the population of Northern Ireland have indicated a wish to be in the South, with all the qualifications of that, we might


find ourselves considering a smaller Northern Ireland coming into the United Kingdom.

Mr. Biffen: Yes. I note that the hon. Gentleman believes that the range of options considered by Her Majesty's Opposition includes that of a partition, which enables that part of Northern Ireland to be contained within the United Kingdom to be one which is ethnically and culturally more homogeneous than now. We can say that this small debate may have been of value in that we can take note of that statement from the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.] That statement was delivered from the Opposition Front Bench. I am not going to try to intervene in a row between the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Leeds, South We have soldiered through a fairly long night without getting distracted in this fashion.
I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Member for Leeds, South has responded to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon. Sooner or later, I suspect that we shall have to come back to this subject. We may think that our debates are going on at an absurd and protracted hour, but I suspect that the words spoken here will be read carefully by many people in Northern Ireland, and this debate will be read and carefully borne in mind for future reference.

Mr. Powell: There is one practical point, to which the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) drew attention, which has not been explicitly mentioned in any of the speeches and is worth recording in a few sentences.
I think that there is a feeling, shared in all parts of the Committee, that the probability is that the arrangements which we are making in the Bill will prove more durable than the initial year. The old French proverb has been more than once referred to. I doubt whether many hon. Members feel sure that it will not have a currency of several years.
7.45 a.m.
It is easy for us now, at the inception of these new arrangements, to say, "Oh, they are only temporary; therefore, we can and ought to ignore the severe

anomaly that as long as they last our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland have a much lower scale of parliamentary representation than our fellow citizens in Great Britain". Our difficulty is that as the time lengthens there may never be a moment when we feel that it is right to correct this anomaly, tolerable for a brief period but increasingly intolerable as that period lengthens. Therefore, it is worth while putting on record the fact that we are conscious that we are using the temporary nature of these arrangements and their assumed brevity as our sole justification for denying to the electorate of Northern Ireland the scale of parliamentary representation that is enjoyed in the rest of the Kingdom.
That must be a reason for returning to this matter, not necessarily at the stage to which I admit that I look forward—some of us do not—when true integration falls to be considered. We have a duty in this House of Commons to keep this matter before us and to return to it much sooner than that.

Mr. Kilfedder: I intervene only briefly. When my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) introduced his Amendment he said that he understood that his Unionist colleagues could not put their names to the Amendment. I believe that the best future for Ulster is full integration within the United Kingdom. In my opinion the sooner it comes the better for Northern Ireland. But we are speaking about the present time. I feel that it is wrong that Northern Ireland should be under-represented in the House. The majority should have their voice here, but the minority should also have their voice.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has said, we must allow the people to give expression to their feelings within Parliament itself. That is why the demonstration that took place in Belfast on Monday and Tuesday acted as a safety valve. In that sense it was very useful. We need to make sure that there is a full expression of opinion from Northern Ireland. The figures which the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) gave of the electoral quota for England, Wales and Scotland would seem to indicate that Ulster ought to have about 20 Members of Parliament. If one casts one's mind back to the Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) Act,


1918, one remembers that Northern Ireland then had 30 seats in the House. Thirty is not an unacceptable number.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South, that perhaps what has been experienced by the Committee through the night may put people off the idea of full integration. I hope not, because I believe that proceedings like this would take place in a sort of Ulster Grand Committee upstairs, as I outlined in an Amendment which, unfortunately, was not called. I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon for raising this matter.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) spoke of what he picturesquely called "the Celtic premium", and the same point was made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) in a different way. For the record it should be said that the Scots' representation in the central belt is very much that of the English average. I represent 70,000 constituents, but this is heavily weighed down by constituencies such as the Western Isles and Caithness and Sutherland.

Mr. Molyneaux: Speaking as a Northern Ireland Member with the largest electorate not only in Northern Ireland but in the whole of the United Kingdom—well over 150,000—I was greatly relieved to hear that the Stormont Members, of whom I have six in my constituency, will continue to have some of the work load and to channel their constituents' complaints through the Secretary of State. Had it not been for that arrangement, the work load would have been intolerable if those seats were abolished and we had to reach more workable arrangements.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite for the way in which the Amendment has been moved and discussed. As the mover and my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) reminded us, the spirit in which the Amendment was moved was exploratory. I doubt whether the explorers will feel at the end of what I say that they have discovered much treasure, but I will do my best to comment on the points that have been made.
It is, of course, a good thing that the Amendment is exploratory because as it stands on the Notice Paper it does not make much sense and it is defective in a major respect. If an Amendmenton these lines were to make sense there would be a need for substantial powers for such a procedure as is outlined and those powers do not exist, nor are they hinted at, except by implication, in the Amendment. So if the Government were to accept the Amendment it would make a nonsense of the situation. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) said, that he had not that intention in mind when he moved it.
A great deal of arithmetic has been put around by hon. Members, by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), and a number of different views and hypothesis have been put forward. For what it is worth at this time in the morning, my brief gives the figure of 16 seats. I put that in the pool in the same spirit that other hon. Members have put forward figures. This is an argument about a hypothetical situation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) put his fingers on the truth of the matter, that the Government's position is and must be that we are dealing here with legislation which carries the title "temporary". It would be hopelessly inappropriate to make enormous longstanding permanent changes in the representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster in this way in a kind of instant law form. This would not be the vehicle for that. Of course, it is perfectly easy to say, and I am saying it now with ease, that this is a temporary Bill. It is equally true to say—a good many hon. Members have said it—that only the provisional lasts. At five to eight in the morning it is easy to say anything, as the whim takes one, in terms of how long the legislation will apply.
As has been made clear by my hon. Friend and myself again and again throughout the night, these are matters on which, if we were to seek to crystallise them now, we would be anticipating the very discussions and issues to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State-designate will be giving his mind and all


his energies over the coming weeks and months. These are points which are bound to arise then.
It goes without saying—this is no more than an academic observation—that if at the end of the day the constitutional arrangements were such that Northern Ireland had no provincial Parliament, obviously the representation at Westminster would need to be carefully examined. Arguments that it should be increased would be bound to be advanced.
For the time being, easy though it may be to say that this is temporary legislation or to predict, wisely or unwisely, that it will go on longer, the fact is that this is a Bill dealing with a temporary situation providing for temporary arrangements. That is the spirit in which it is put forward. Therefore, it would obviously be entirely wrong to accept at this stage that either speculation about this kind of constitutional change or discussion as to its desirability had any place.
I must therefore ask my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon to withdraw the Amendment, as I am sure he will, because he said that it is only exploratory. As I prophesied, my hon. Friend will not be satisfied with the discoveries from what I said, but I hope he will feel that I have commented fairly on the points which were raised.

Mr. Maude: In view of what my hon. Friend rightly described as the paucity of the treasure trove in his brief, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 26, at the beginning insert:
4.—(1) Her Majesty shall not be recommended to make an Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act unless either a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament or the Order declares that it has been made to appear to Her Majesty that by reason of urgency the Order requires to be made without a draft having been so approved.

The Chairman: With this Amendment the Committee can discuss also the following Amendments:

No. 39, in page 4, line 26, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 28.

No. 40, in line 29, leave out 'in the case of an Order relating to taxation'.

No. 41, in line 29, after 'Order'. insert:
(i) specified in the said Order as being an Order to which sub-paragraph (l)(a) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule applies or (ii).

No. 42, in line 29, after 'taxation', insert:
'or the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order or the establishment powers or composition of any court or the power or duties of any member (by whatever title designated) of any police force under the management and control of the Secretary of State'.

No. 44, in line 36, leave out from 'Order)' to end of line 38.

No. 45, in line 36, leave out from 'Order)' to end of paragraph 4.

No. 46, in line 37, leave out from 'be' to end of line 38 and insert:
'laid in draft before Parliament and not made until it has been approved by both Houses'.

No. 48, in page 4, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert:

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under section 1(3) of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 unless either a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament or the regulations declare that it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency the regulations require to be made without a draft having been so approved; and where any regulations are so made by the Secretary of State without a draft having been so approved, the last fore going sub-paragraph shall apply to them as it applies to an Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act.

(3) An Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act may, in relation to any statutory rules (including any such rules made by virtue of such an Order in Council), make provision corresponding to the last foregoing sub-paragraph or provision for the rules to be subject to annulmnt in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and for section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to apply accordingly.

No. 50, in line 41, leave out from 'be' to end of line 44 and insert:
'made by statutory instrument and unless such instrument or a draft thereof has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament it shall be subject to the like procedure as an Order to which sub-paragraph (1)(a) above applies'.

No. 52, in line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

No. 54, in page 5, line 2, leave out from 'but' to end of line 8, and insert:
'no such step shall be taken or thing come into operation unless an Order in Council has been made relating thereto and any such Order, other than an Order of which a draft has been approved by each House of Parliament shall be subject to the like procedure as an Order to which sub-paragraph (l)(a) above applies.'

No. 55, in page 5, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert:
(b) subject to any provision made by virtue of the last foregoing sub-paragraph, any statutory rules so made or coming into operation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.

No. 57, in line 16, leave out 'not apply so long as section 1 of this Act has effect' and insert:
'apply as if references to the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of either House thereof were references to the Parliament of the United Kingdom or the corresponding House thereof.'

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It might save the time of the Committee if you felt inclined to take the following: my Amendment No. 43, in page 4, line 31, leave out from 'days' to 'after' in line 32 and insert:
'(being forty days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting, and on which the Standing Orders and practice of each House, respectively enable such business to be taken in Orders of the Day)'.
My Amendment No. 51, in page 4, line 43, leave out from 'instrument' to end of line 44 and insert:
'during a period of forty days, being days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting, and on which the Standing Orders and practice of each House, respectively enable such business to be taken in Orders of the Day'.
And the manuscript Amendment to Government Amendment No. 55, at end insert:
'save that the period of 40 days shall be confined to days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting, and on which the Standing Orders and practice of each House respectively enables such business to be taken in Orders of the Day.'
The argument on all three Amendments is exactly the same.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that would be for the convenience of the Committee.

The Attorney-General: This batch of Amendments includes five Government Amendments and a number of other Amendments standing in the names of right hon. and hon. Members.
The Committee will recollect that on Second Reading it became evident to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State designate, and indeed had been in his mind earlier, that the parliamentary procedure which was proposed under the Bill as it then was and as it now is was not satisfactory to the House of Commons and that it could be and should be improved. It was for this reason that when winding up the debate on Second Reading I made it clear that Amendments would be tabled by the Government under which the Order could be made forthwith—
but will lapse if not approved by affirmative Resolution…".—[Official Report, 28th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 361.]
The effect of Amendment No. 38 is that the Government now will carry out that which I said that they would do. Under paragraph 4(1), therefore, in ordinary circumstances the Government will lay a draft Order in Council, and such a draft Order in Council, if it is approved by both Houses of Parliament, will come into effect—that is, it must have the approval of both Houses. If it is not approved, it does not come into effect and during the time it has been laying neither the Secretary of State nor anyone else can act under the powers contained in draft. Accordingly, only after Parliament—that, is both Houses of Parliament—has affirmatively approved can any acts be done or powers taken in such procedure.
As an exception, as the Committee will note from the second part of Amendment No. 38, if by reason of urgency an order is required to be made before a draft has been approved the order will be made. Acts then can be done under that order. It will be laid before Parliament. If within 40 days both Houses have not affirmatively approved the order, the order shall cease to have effect, without prejudice to anything previously done.
8.0 a.m.
Amendment No. 38 therefore effects this major change. Amendments Nos. 40 and 44 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are consequential. Amendment No. 48 substitutes


the affirmative procedure for the negative procedure which is at present in the Bill in respect of regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Special Powers Act. Under paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 48 any statutory rules, that is to say instruments, which are made under Stormont statute, which are defined by paragraph 7 of the Schedule, may be subject to affirmative procedure or provision may be made for them to be subject to the negative Resolution. This is for flexibility. For instance, if a matter is of minor importance then the negative Resolution procedure can be used.
Amendment No. 55 provides that the statutory rules requiring affirmative Resolution on a draft at Stormont can, by Order in Council, be by affirmative or negative procedure at Westminster. If silent it will be by negative procedure. The Amendments meet the points raised in Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and45 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and Amendments 39, 45, 42 and 46 in the names of certain of my hon. Friends. But I turn to Amendments Nos. 54 and 57 in the name of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East(Mr. Callaghan). Amendment No. 54 provides that where under Northern Irish legislation a step cannot be taken nor a thing brought into operation unless there has been a resolution or motion of the Northern Irish Parliament, that step shall not be taken nor that thing be brought into operation unless there is an Order in Council. Amendment No. 54 calls for an Order in Council requiring an affirmative Resolution.
A wide range of matters may require a Stormont motion or a Stormont resolution. The Government consider that this would impose a quite unnecessary burden on the Houses of Parliament and therefore it is proposed to apply the parliamentary procedures only to Statutory Instruments or to Statutory Orders which are made under Northern Irish legislation. As I explained, Amendments Nos. 48 and 55 achieve this. So an Order in Council may make provision for a Statutory Instrument to be subject to affirmative Resolution or negative Resolution and, if it is silent, the negative Resolution will apply. This retains the flexibility for

deciding which parliamentary procedure should apply, dependent upon the importance of the subject matter. But in each case there will be parliamentary scrutiny for all Statutory Instruments or Statutory Rules which at present require a Northern Irish Resolution or Motion.
Amendment No. 57, in the name of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East deals with Stormont Instruments which do not at present require a Resolution or Motion but merely require to be laid, and the Bill does not envisage any need to require such Instruments to be laid. Amendment No. 57 would require such instruments to be laid before Westminster. It is unnecessary for those Instruments which Stormont did not make subject to either affirmative or negative procedures to be laid before Westminster, and it is better to retain the flexibility.
You indicated, Sir Robert, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that we would consider the two manuscript Amendments standing in his name because, as I indicated, in the affirmative Resolution procedure the period is a matter of 40 days. I regret the misunderstanding over this which was referred to earlier in our debates, which started on what is now yesterday. I apologise to the Committee for what must have misled my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and other hon. Members, when in the course of winding-up the debate yesterday my hon. Friend interjected about what I had said about 40 sitting days when I referred to the Government's proposal over the Amendments to substitute the affirmative for the negative procedure and referred to 40 sitting days, as reported at column 361 of Hansard for 28th March. My hon. Friend intervened to say that 40 sitting days excluded Saturdays and Sundays, and he referred to the 1946 Act. I certainly gave the impression then that what was intended was 40 sitting days, but as the Amendments which I have commended appear, they refer to 40 days.
To alter this would be a departure from standard practice. It would defeat the objective of the 1946 Act, which afforded a standard system for calculating the period and for the setting of the period. A departure would set a precedent for different rules applicable to different Statutes.
I appreciate the dissatisfaction felt by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, not only towards me for the misleading nature of my reply to his interjection, but also his dissatisfaction with the system. But he should appreciate that if we altered this it might mean that a court at some time would inquire into the validity of an Order in Council, and it would need to take evidence about days and times when both Houses of Parliament could have considered the Order. It would have to look not only at the Journals but also at each House's Standing Orders, and this could lead within courts to disputes, uncertainties and differences over sittings of Parliament.
Contrary to what I said when I misled my hon. Friend, the normal procedure in the Bill will be affirmative Resolution on a draft. The period will be 40 days. This is not so relevant when dealing with affirmative orders, because one can do nothing until the Order in Council is approved. It would be more relevant where the negative procedure was being applied. However, I am advised that this matter, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton knows much and feels very strongly, is to be considered by the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's knowledge and feelings will be of great help to that Committee.
I anticipate that there will be a full examination of the matter and of the differences in opinion as to what is the best way of setting these periods of time. But in the circumstances of these orders, for all important matters the Government will require affirmative approval of an order by both Houses and will obviously make available Government time to ensure that there is parliamentary approval.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion might assist the Government in extending the period of time, but the considerations of consistency, certainty and the knowledge that this will be considered by the Select Committee are of such importance that I could not recommend that the Committee should alter the 40-day period set out in the Amendment. I repeat my sincere apologies to the House for the misunderstanding in winding up the debate yesterday afternoon.
I suggest that the present sets of Amendments presents a realistic approach

to the problem which we have to face in framing the Bill. The Government's proposals effect the purpose that all important legislation shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the less important legislation to the negative resolution procedure. They make an important improvement in the Bill and strengthen the power of Westminster to scrutinise Orders in Council and so to control the Executive.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: During the debate yesterday and through the long night the Opposition have supported the Government.
We have done so because we believe the course they have taken is probably inevitable and right, and because we have accepted the fact that urgency has been the key to the operation on which the Secretary of State designate will base his future actions. For this reason we have not demurred at the totally unusual procedures of legislation by Order in Council which are enshrined in the Bill.
None the less, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) during the Second Reading debate said that, even though we were taking an exceptional course, it was essential that Parliament should have as much opportunity as possible for scrutiny of the legislation which this Bill will enable to be passed by Order in Council and other means.
My right hon. Friend referred in particular to the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Schedule. He said that we would wish to table Amendments to enable Parliament to take a closer scrutiny of the legislation—particularly legislation arising out of the Special Powers Act, so long as it may last—than appeared in the Schedule. We have tabled Amendments to that effect, but the Attorney-General has also tabled Amendments to cover our points.
Amendment No. 50 is particularly important since it brings the regulations under the Special Powers Act within the affirmative Resolution procedure instead of the negative resolution procedure.
8.15 a.m.
We are glad that the Government have adopted that in addition to several other of our proposals. The Attorney-General has mentioned two of our Amendments, Nos. 54 and 57, which the Government


have not seen fit to adopt. At this hour I do not wish to dwell upon those which in principle have been adopted, because we are prepared to accept the Government's drafting when it differs from ours, but where the basic principle which we sought to achieve has been given effect to.
I want to say a word about Amendments 54 and 57 and Government Amendment 48, which gives the Government an alternative method when dealing with statutory rules by allowing the use of either affirmative or negative procedure. The Attorney-General said that this is to give flexibility which is no doubt desirable. If he could help the Committee by giving some indication as to how the choice will be made, as the Amendment appears to leave it completely open and a matter for discretion, it would be a great help.
Dealing with Amendment 54, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph (4) provides that at present under Northern Irish legislation for some step to be taken or some thing to come into operation a Resolution or Motion has to be passed or an Address presented. In other words, there must be some form of affirmative procedure. The Government are providing that instead of the affirmative procedure the negative procedure would be sufficient. Amendment No. 54 sought to revert to the affirmative procedure by using the same type of device as was provided in the earlier part of paragraph (4). The Government are not accepting that, albeit that in Northern Irish law these matters require the affirmative procedure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the negative procedure was sufficient but did not justify it. I should like to know why the change is made, particularly when the Government are rightly going out of their way in other matters to accede to our view that wherever possible the affirmative procedure should be used.
The effect of leaving the paragraph as it stands will be the well-known procedure whereby, if one is lucky, one succeeds in getting a debate at a late hour of the night, but that often one does not have that good fortune.
Amendment No. 57, our other Amendment which the Government have not accepted or accepted in substance, deals with sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 4

to have the maximum amount of scrutiny, which provides that where at present, under Northern Irish law, it would be necessary for an Instrument to be laid before Parliament, it will not be necessary for a similar Instrument to be laid before this Parliament.
We find it difficult to follow why, if in effect, this Parliament is taking over from Stormont, the powers of Stormont through the Secretary of State designate and the procedure to which the Schedule gives effect, such Instruments should not be similarly laid before this Parliament and why this Parliament should not have the same opportunity of seeing it, as Stormont would have had, had it not been prorogued.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney-General, says that the Government do not intend to accept that, but he does not explain, other than by saying that there are many such Instruments, the reason this Parliament should not have an opportunity of at least seeing, and therefore scrutinising, these Instruments, however many they be, and however long they would have been laid before Stormont. We are not asking for any greater necessity for approval or possibility of annulment than in the case of similar Instruments laid before Stormont.
We are simply asking that they be laid before this Parliament so that we have an opportunity of scrutinising them and we should have thought, particularly with this dramatic change which we are having, that in matters previously dealt with by Stormont Parliament and now to be dealt with by the Secretary of State designate, and through him, by this Parliament, as much information as possible should be provided to this Parliament so that it can fulfil its function properly—of scrutinising what the Secretary of State designate does in future.
He says that he welcomes that scrutiny, and if the Government had felt able to give effect to this Amendment, or something similar, that could have been done readily and would help this Parliament to carry out its scrutiny.
Subject to those comments, we accept that the Government go a long way towards what we ask for and we think they are absolutely right, within the limits of what is possible, to allow Parliament to have the maximum amount of scrutiny.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The object of my Amendments is in each case the same. It is threefold: to say that hon. Members of this House of Commons should know what the 40 days actually mean, because it is manifestly the case that many of us, including the Attorney-General, do not.
It is evident that the real reason why the Attorney-General has advised rejection of these important Amendments is that he has inadequate knowledge of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House and dare not touch what he does not understand.
The 40-day period laid down in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, required that anybody outside the House should look to see when the House sits and when it does not. If the House is adjourned or if it is prorogued for more than four days, a search for the Adjournment dates has to be made anyway, since the clock stops counting the space in the 40 days in which those days fall. Incidentally, the Clerks advising the House of Lords interpret the 40 days differently from the Clerks advising the House of Commons, and examination of the Standing Orders of each House is, therefore, necessary anyway.
I find that most hon. Members of this House of Commons do not realise that 40 praying days include Saturdays and Sundays on which no Prayers can be entertained because the House is not sitting, and they also include those days at the beginning of a new Parliament when the House is swearing in new Members and, therefore, cannot entertain Prayers. Therefore, the number of days in the 40 days nominal on which Prayers can actually be entertained varies—leaving aside the first three days of a new Parliament, between 28 and 30,according to the day of the week on which the Statutory' Instrument was laid upon the Table. It is necessary, therefore, for any court outside to discover which day it was laid and to calculate how many Saturdays and Sundays there are in that period so that it may know how many days were able to elapse.
What, surely, we all want to avoid are several things. We all want to avoid hon. Members feeling that they have been cheated out of the right to pray against a Statutory Instrument because they have miscalculated the days on which they are able to pray. If my Amendment is accepted every hon. Member will know that it

is 40 days during which Prayers can be entertained from the day on which the Statutory Instrument was laid. That is a simple sum for anybody to do, unlike the alternative.
Something of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General may be quite unaware is that the rules according to whether or not one can take affirmative Resolutions on the one hand, or Prayers for annulment on the other hand, after 11.30 at night are different. So his observation that the 40 days are not really very important in the case of affirmative Resolutions shows that he is not seized of this point.
Another thing which I am sure the House will want to avoid is a plethora of orders on Irish business at four, five or six o'clock in the morning on some days because they are taken in addition to the normal work of the House. If we have effectively only 28 or 30 days, rather than the 40 days which most hon. Members believe we have, it will be necessary to pyramid them, taking them on top of other business, whereas if we have 40 real days we should be able to spread the burden much more reasonably, so that hon. Members will not have to sit in the Chamber till absurd hours. I would have thought that to be in the interests of good parliamentary government and in the interests of the House.
Thirdly, it is in the interests of the Government in making up their own programme for each week. They would have greater flexibility with 40 real, effective days rather than the alternative of 28 or 30, according to which day the Statutory Instrument was laid on the Table.
That these Irish orders should be subject to a real period of 40 days, as compared with the spurious period of 40 days laid down in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, is in no way unreasonable. We are legislating for the special case of the suspension of Stormont. We are loading on to ourselves an immense amount of extra work. We therefore owe it to ourselves to smooth this path as much as we can rather than tie ourselves to the 1946 Act.
8.30 a.m.
When I tabled an earlier Bill on this matter in a previous Parliament, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill,


who was Solicitor-General when the 1946 Act was passed, and one of its authors, authorised me to say that he had not realised the implications of the 40 spurious days. He thought that period required amendment into real days.
I should also point out, for the benefit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who refers in his Amendment No. 55 to Section 5 of the 1946 Act, that that Section is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 7, which applies to it the same spurious assumption that Saturdays and Sundays are days on which business can be taken when everyone knows that they are not. The three or four days when new Members are being sworn in in a new Parliament also count in the 40 days, when everyone present knows that no such business can be entertained.
The net result is that if Parliament is dissolved just before a weekend the whole House loses its praying rights to the tune of five or six days. This may mean that Prayers which hon. Members wish to move disappear, and can by no dispensation be considered, because they will be outside the scope of the Act. That is why it is necessary for the Committee to adopt Amendment No. 43. Amendment No. 51 falls with the adoption of the Government's Amendment No. 44, and to Government Amendment No. 55 it is desirable to add the following manuscript Amendment:
save that the period of forty days shall be confined to days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting, and on which the Standing Orders and practices of each House respectively enable such business to be taken in Orders of the Day.
I have discussed these proposals with a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, including the Shadow Home Secretary. They have met with general approval in the cause that Members should know what the law is and should be able to calculate it themselves easily. So far from this making things more difficult for people outside the House, as was the absurd claim of the Attorney-General, it makes it easier for them just as it makes it easier for us.
On those grounds, quite apart from what should be the over-riding ground that the Attorney-General gave a definite assurance last night before the vote on Second Reading, and is therefore com-

mitted to supporting 40 authentic days rather than 40 spurious days, I must ask hon. Members on both sides to support the Amendments. Otherwise there will be a breach of faith by the Government with regard to their undertaking given last night, and the House will needlessly sit late into nights and mornings in the future, which it would not otherwise have to do, and hon. Members will occasionally find that owing to the complex, unreasonable and bizarre provisions of the 1946 Act they are done out of the right to pray when they believe that they have it.

The Attorney-General: I repeat my apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). He has given me a severe wigging. When I look again at what I said, I see that it was probably fifty-fifty. I had to toss up, either "Yes" or "No". If I had said "Yes" I would have been right; if I had said "No" I would have been wrong. I am not quite as ignorant as my hon. Friend asserts, but I was wrong on this occasion and I apologise sincerely to him. I hope his expertise on this matter will be available to the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation. I know my hon. Friend feels strongly about this but, for the reasons I have advanced, I must commend the Amendments in their present form to the Committee despite what I said last evening.
In reply to what the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) said about his Amendments Nos. 54 and 57, Orders in Council to which the affirmative procedure applies will replace the principal Irish legislation—that is to say, Irish Bill—and for Special Powers Regulations the affirmative procedure will also apply. They are in a special category. Statutory Rules are subordinate Irish legislation. I cannot give the exact categories, of Statutory Rules, but some deserve and will therefore be given affirmative procedure and the minor ones will be given the negative procedure. That is the procedure which I believe can give to the House within the limits of the Bill, which we all accept, the power to scrutinise the legislation which will come before it in the form of Orders in Council.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the learned Attorney-General tell the Committee what he proposes to do about the legislation


concerning the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation?

The Attorney-General: I cannot say because I do not know about that legislation. The legislation which I know about and which concerns me very much is the prosecution of offences legislation which was nearly completed by the Stormont Parliament. After this Bill becomes law an Order in Council will be laid as a matter of urgency to carry out that proposal of the Stormont Government. I will certainly look into the matter the hon. Member has raised and bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the legislation to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred be introduced by a procedure which will give the House a full opportunity of considering it in view of its great importance?

The Attorney-General: Yes, it will be covered by the urgency provision in Amendment No. 38 so that it will be effective as soon as it is laid, but of course within 40 days—I do not want to get back on that fence—there must be an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 40, in page 4, line 29, leave out 'in the case of an Order relating to taxation'.

No. 44, in page 4, line 36, leave out from 'Order)' to end of line 38.

No. 48, in page 4, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert:
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make any regulations under section 1(3) of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 unless either a draft of the regulations has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament or the regulations declare that it appears to the Secretary of State that by reason of urgency the regulations require to be made without a draft

having been so approved; and where any regulations are so made by the Secretary of State without a draft having been so approved, the last foregoing sub-paragraph shall apply to them as it applies to an Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act.

(3) An Order in Council under section 1(3) of this Act may, in relation to any statutory rules (including any such rules made by virtue of such an Order in Council), make provision corresponding to the last foregoing sub-paragraph or provision for the rules to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and for section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 to apply accordingly.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Wallace): The next Amendment is No. 53, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who will move it in a slightly amended form.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move Amendment No. 53, in page 5, line 2, after 'address', insert:
This sub-paragraph shall have no application to the consent required under subsection (2) of section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949 (which provides that in no event will Northern Ireland nor any part thereof cease to be part of His Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland); and

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Wallace. Are we merely being asked to accept a verbal Amendment to the Amendment by the hon. and reverend Gentleman or the whole of the Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman: Amendment No. 53 has been moved in a slightly amended form and can now be debated.

Mr. McNamara: It is not our intention to make speeches on Amendment No. 53 but simply to divide against it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 116, Noes 10.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[8.43 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bossom, Sir Clive
Chapman, Sydney


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bowden, Andrew
Chataway, Rt. Hn, Christopher


Astor, John
Braine, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Atkins, Humphrey
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon, W.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Clegg, Walter


Blaker, Peter
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Cooke, Robert


Body, Richard
Carlisle, Mark
Coombs, Derek


Boscawen, Robert
Channon, Paul
Cormack, Patrick




Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Eden, Sir John
Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Knox, David
Redmond, Robert


Eyre, Reginald
Lambton, Antony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Fortescue, Tim
Lomas, Kenneth
Scott, Nicholas


Fowler, Norman
Luce, R. N.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fox, Marcus
MacArthur, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.
Spence, John


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, Iain


Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gorst, John
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gummer, Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Maude, Angus
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trew, Peter


Havers, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Waddington, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Ward, Dame Irene


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Molyneaux, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Charles
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.



Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Jessel, Toby
Peel, John
Mr. Oscar Murton.


NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)



Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
McManus, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dalyell, Tam
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Kevin McNamara and


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Stanley Orme


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Stallard, A. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 55, in page 5, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert:
(b) subject to any provision made by virtue of the last foregoing sub-paragraph, any statutory rules so made or coming into operation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at end insert:
save that the period of 40 days shall be confined to days Mondays to Fridays inclusive on which Parliament is sitting and on which the Standing Orders and practice of each House respectively enables such business to be taken in Orders of the Day.

Question put, That the Amendment to the proposed Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 107.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[8.55 a.m.


McMaster, Stanley
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maginnis, John E.
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop and


Molyneaux, James
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Kilfedder.


NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, G. B.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Eden, Sir John


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Channon, Paul
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Benyon, W.
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Biggs-Davison, John
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman


Boscawen, Robert
Clegg, Walter
Fox, Marcus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooke, Robert
Gibson-Watt, David


Bowden, Andrew
Coombs, Derek
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Braine, Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Goodhew, Victor


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Gorst, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)




Gummer, J. Selwyn
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Havers, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Hawkins, Paul
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hayhoe, Barney
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mather, Carol
Sutcliffe, John


Holland, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, sir Charles(Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Normanton, Tom
Trew, Peter


Hunt, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Parkinson, Cecil
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Peel John
Waddington, David


Jopling, Michael
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Kinsey, J. R.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Knox, David
Redmond, Robert



Lambton, Lord
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Oscar Murton and


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Hugh Rossi

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 55, in page 5, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert:
(6) subject to any provision made by virtue of the last foregoing sub-paragraph, any statutory rules so made or coming into operation shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in like manner as a statutory instrument and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply accordingly.

Manuscript Amendment, in page 5, line 17, at end insert:
5. So long as section 1 of this Act has effect, section 10(3), (4) and (5)(a) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and section 11(3) of the Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 shall have effect as if any reference therein to the Parliament of Northern Ireland were a reference to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.—[The Attorney-General.]

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Wallace): We come to Amendment No. 60.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Wallace. The Liberals, who put this Amendment on the Notice Paper, were to create a great fuss, but they are not present this morning.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We take Amendment No. 61.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move, Amendment No. 61, in page 6, line 8, leave out from 'thereof' to end of paragraph and insert:
'other than an Order in Council, regulation or other instrument in relation to Irish services, as defined by subsection (8) of section 8 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920'.

I am very glad that the Liberals have given place to me. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to—

The Attorney-General: On a point of order, Mr. Wallace. Would it be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 62? That is, in line 10, leave out from 'having' to end of line 11 and insert:
'effect or provision to take effect until the expiry of the section'.

The Temporary Chairman: Certainly

Rev. Ian Paisley: How I was expected to discuss my Amendment No. 11 at this hour of the night I do not know. I leave it to the Committee to consider who decided on that.
This is a Temporary Provisions Bill, yet paragraph 6 makes provision for laws which shall have a permanent effect. That is a contradiction. I know that it will be argued that laws made must be continued. I do not believe that duties or powers conferred should be continued. I do not want the Attorney-General to say that the laws must continue. I admit that, but there are certain duties and powers conferred. It is those that I do not want to see become permanent. If this is only a Temporary Provisions Bill, they should not be permanent.
The terms of the Amendment concerns the services which are transferred to the Stormont Government. I do not want those transferred services to be made permanent under the Temporary Provisions Act.

Mr. Pounder: The object of Amendment No. 62 is to delete the permanency which could emanate from an Order in


Council made during the period of the validity of the Bill and yet could still be effective on or after its expiry. The Amendment seeks to secure that anything which is passed by virtue of the Bill shall expire at the end of the period of validity of the Bill.
During the course of the night there has been repeated emphasis on the temporary nature of this Measure. It is rather incongruous that permanent decisions can be made under a Temporary Provisions Bill, bearing in mind that the object of the Bill is that at some stage at the expiry thereof, after one year or later, Stormont should b reconstituted. It is only right that when Stormont has been reconstituted it, as the elected assembly, should be allowed to make up its own mind about legislation which was passed during the period of its prorogation. That alone is what the Amendment means. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be able to offer some guidance on this subject.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) have told the Committee that these Amendments seek to delete any element of permanency in any of the legislation which will come before the House of Commons and be approved by Order in Council.
There certainly will be in the case of the establishment of the office of a Director of Public Prosecutions an intention to create a permanent office, an office which permanently should be part of the judicial criminal law administration in Northern Ireland, and it would be the wishes of the whole of the people of Northern Ireland that there should be such an office. It is proposed that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will remain in being when the Temporary Provisions Act has come to an end. It would be a matter for the House to decide, when it saw what came before it, but this is an example of the desirability of being able to effect certain matters where there should be some permanency.
When the Bill, a temporary provisions Measure, expires a vacuum cannot be left. Some other legislative machinery will replace the machinery in the Bill and

different alternatives will suggest themselves to hon. Members. Whatever happens, there cannot be a hiatus as soon as the Bill terminates, as it will, at the due time. There will have to be some instrument for legislating, and that instrument, whatever it may be, will have the power, if it so wishes, if it disapproves of any legislation passed under the Bill, to repeal or to amend it.
If we agreed to the Amendment, there would be a hiatus. The law would be repealed and there would be nothing immediately to take its place. It would be wholly impractical and could create a chaotic or crisis situation. It would be better to leave the law made under this Bill for the successor, whatever the successor may be, for a legislature which will have authority to repeal or amend.
This is a very practical and sensible way to approach it rather than to leave a gap which would immediately have to be filled by some crisis legislation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Attorney-General is not applying himself to the point that I sought to make. Everyone knows that the laws that are made must continue. They could not possibly be set aside from all other law on the expiry of the Bill. But Clause 1 could confer powers or duties upon the Secretary of State or any other Minister or Department of the United Kingdom Government. We should not give the Secretary of State the right to transfer these powers permanently.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Wallace. An hon. Member on the Government side of the Committee is reading a newspaper or periodical.

The Temporary Chairman: The Chair has not noticed it.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) forgets, I think, that I was also speaking to Amendment No. 62 which has this effect and upon which I have been asked to elaborate. Of course, powers under Clause 1 will fall with the Bill. It may be that under the legislation brought forward by Order in Council before this House there will be offices or law which will be thought should have a permanent effect. Let us take, for


example, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. There should be permanency so that when the temporary provisions expire the office of the Director does not suddenly disappear also but remains. If a successor Government decide that they do not want the D.P.P., they legislate to eliminate him, regrettable and unlikely as that may be.
Therefore it does not affect what concerns my hon. Friend, namely the powers to be given to the Secretary of State. These are temporary powers which will fall as soon as this temporary Bill ends.

9.15 a.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: It may be due to the lateness of the hour that I have not fully followed what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Do I understand him to say that where an Order in Council proposes to have permanent effect it will be so specified in the Order and that the House of Commons will then be seized of that fact?
In regard to the specific illustration of the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, I understand from the Attorney-General that the intention is that that office shall remain as part of the permanent fabric, in so far as anything ever remains part of any permanent fabric, but the intention is that it should remain as part of the continuing machinery in Northern Ireland, whatever may occur hereafter. In regard to that, does it mean that there will be a provision in the Order in Council expressly giving permanent effect to it, or does the Attorney-General contemplate that it will be necessary, when the powers under the Bill lapse, to introduce fresh legislation in Parliament to deal with that situation? Perhaps he would explain the matter, as I may have it quite wrong.

The Attorney-General: Using that example, no; that office will be established by the legislation which will take place under the Bill.

Sir Elwyn Jones: By the Order in Council?

The Attorney-General: Yes, by the Order in Council, which will be approved by both Houses of Parliament. That will be setting up that office, for instance; it

will be legislation, and it will have the force of law until such time as it happens that there is legislation amending or repealing such legislation.
But what falls with the Bill will be the effect of Clause 1 in giving to the Secretary of State, for instance, all the functions of the Governor, the Minister or the head of the Department. That is what will fall with the ending of the Bill. But the legislation which is made, and properly made, under powers given in the Bill will still be legislation and law, and it will require some other amendment or repeal of the law duly made by whatever succeeds the powers of making a law under the Bill. So the law-making function under the Bill creates law, and it would have to be repealed or amended by any successor legislative power which the House of Commons sees fit to give.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Is the position that so far as any laws are made, whether by Order in Council or by enactment, the effect of those laws will be that they will continue in force until they are repealed or in some way amended?

The Attorney-General: Yes.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

The Chairman: Before I leave the Chair, I should like to announce to the Committee that the Amendments which have been submitted to Mr. Speaker for Report are available in the Vote Office now. Mr. Speaker is returning to the Chair now and will announce his selection.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

Clause 1

EXERCISE OF EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE POWERS IN N.I.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude); namely, in Clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out 'a', and insert 'such'; and in line 36, leave out 'of one year', and insert 'as the Order may specify'.

9.20 a.m.

Mr. Maude: I beg to move in Clause 1, page 2, line 36, leave out 'a', and insert 'such'.
I should like at the same time to discuss the other Amendment selected by Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of this brief pair of Amendments is to substitute for the words that the section
shall continue in force for a further period of one year from the time at which it would otherwise expire
the words
shall continue in force for such further period as the Order may specify".
This relates to a point which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who pointed out that, as the Bill is at present drafted, it is a singularly inflexible provision. It means that the Government cannot provide that the continuation of the Bill at the end of one year should be for a less period than one year or that it cannot be for a slightly longer period than one year.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State-designate said in reply to another debate that serious difficulties could arise if it should happen that at the time the Bill came up for renewal or when the Government wanted it to end important legislation was still on its way through what might be called the sausage machine. Therefore, it would clearly be for the benefit of the Government if it were possible to make this small Amendment so as to leave them with a more flexible power to extend this for a period. It is obvious that they would not wish to make the period markedly longer, but it would give them the ability to adjust it for a shorter period.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Does the effect of what the hon. Gentleman proposes mean that, if the Government so willed, they could introduce an order to have effect for 10 years? I thought that one of the burdens of complaint in the debate in the small hours was not from a desire to give greater power of indefinite extension, but from a desire to restrict and limit it. I am surprised at the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. Maude: The object of the Amendment is to give the Government greater

flexibility upwards and downwards. We have frequently been assured by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that they would have no intention of coming to the House asking for a longer period. The Secretary of State-designate said that there were certain difficulties which he foresaw arising if he had legislation of importance which had not completed its passage at the point where he would be wanting to renew the powers. If he has no alternative but to renew for a complete extra year it is perfectly possible that he might find himself having to continue the suspension of the Northern Ireland Parliament for a longer period than he would want to. It seems reasonable that he should have this flexibility.

Mr. Channon: We debated this point earlier in Committee when it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The question was whether subsection (5) was too rigidly worded inasmuch as an order can only be made continuing the powers for a period of one year and neither a greater nor less period can be specified. If the Amendment were carried I must advise the House that it would have the effect mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones).
The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) would empower my right hon. Friend to recommend to Parliament by Order in Council that an order be made not for one year but for such period, either greater or less than one year. It would be possible to envisage a situation where someone made an order for 10 years. It is an unlikely proposition maybe, but nevertheless under the terms of the Amendment this could be done.
My right hon. Friend and I have given assurances about this, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend would really like this provision to be in the Statute. My hon. Friend seeks to give my right hon. Friend more flexibility so that the period does not have to be for one year but can be reduced. In practice, as I tried to explain in Committee, I do not think that the fact that it is worded as being for one year will make any substantial difference. If during the course of a year a new situation arose it would almost inevitably require legislation to


be placed before this House to deal with that situation. Such new legislation would include, probably, the repeal of this Measure. There need be no worry on my hon. Friend's part that the subsection is restrictively worded so as to compel my right hon. Friend to continue these powers longer than he would otherwise want to.
9.30 a.m.
At the conclusion of this period some form of legislation would be required and the repeal of this Measure could be included in such legislation. I hope the House will agree that on balance it is better to keep the Bill as it is rather than incorporate a provision which might allow future Secretaries of State to ask for an order, if the House approved, directing that the powers should not expire in one year but possibly continue for some greater period than presently envisaged. I would have thought, knowing that this House is jealous of its rights and seeks to guard against the Executive taking such arbitrary powers, that it would be wiser to allow the Bill to remain as it is. I understand my hon. Friend's wish to help and make matters more flexible, but I believe that it would widen too greatly the discretion to make Orders in Council for these purposes.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: In Northern Ireland the effect of this might be read as being likely to give this House much greater power to renew for a longer period than is contemplated.

Mr. Channon: It would give such powers, and I do not think that the House, if I sense the mood of the House during these long hours, is likely to approve of that.
We all want the House to be jealous of its rights in these matters, and it would not be right for the Amendment to be accepted.

Mr. Maude: In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.30 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: We have come to the end of a long road and to an end,

for the moment, of discussion of the Bill. The House has tonight, I believe, learned something of the kind of burden it has put upon itself—because it is by its own action that the burden has arisen.
We still believe that this step is the wrong step in the wrong way at the wrong time. Although the Bill has been marginally improved and we have managed to get the Government to do something to improve a little the morale of those in Northern Ireland who believe in the link with the United Kingdom, the Government have left a situation in which they have made it mandatory upon themselves to appoint a Commission. This seems to us still a sack which they have slung around their own necks, from around which they may well suffer much in the future and which they may come to regret.
There is a great deal more to be said against this Bill. Having said that, however, most of what is necessary has been said about the Bill, and I suggest to my hon. Friends that they should take the last opportunity to try to cut the throat of the Bill.

9.32 a.m.

Mr. McNamara: I have no intention of detaining the House for long, but merely to say that the Bill goes a long way to meet many of the criticisms hon. Members on this side were making of the policy of Her Majesty's Government over the past year.
We have had first the transfer of security. While some have said that this has been done because of the dual control of power over security matters, to me, representing a Hull constituency, a British constituency, it was more important that, throughout the whole period during which the county of Yorkshire has been supplying so many casualties of the British Army—during these troublesome times—as a constituency Member in Yorkshire I have not had the right to criticise or to have access on the question of command decisions which were being taken and were placing my constituents in jeopardy. I therefore particularly welcome the transfer of security. The House will recall that this is a point which I have specifically urged all the time—that we as a House should control what happens to British soldiers.
I would also say that we welcome the suspension of Stormont. My hon. Friend


the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and his colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour Party, as well as other hon. Members on this side, have, in the long run, all thought that we should see that if Stormont were suspended, there would be given, perhaps, an opportunity for a fresh start. It was perhaps only a glimmer of hope, a little shred of light in the dark gloom, but a chance which exists now which did not exist before. We therefore welcome this suspension of Stormont and also welcome what the Secretary of State designate said about the possibility of talks, but I urge on him, as during our debates, that what he said about the position of internment and special powers we still do not find satisfactory.
We appreciate his problems. We do not deny them. But he in his turn must realise that internment and the special powers go to the root of these troubles—the arbitrary use of power and the possibility that it may be used not in the interests of equality before the law but for the domination of one political sect by another. It is this with which he has to grapple. I am sure that he will do it with good conscience and to the best of his ability, but as speed is of the essence in the whole of this situation, it is something he must do quickly.
I should be wrong if I were to say to the House, granted this Bill gives a breathing space, perhaps an opportunity and time for the majority to reassess their position within Ireland, that I regard this as more than just a phasing out of an unhappy experiment in the history of Ireland. The only successful solution which can come will not be when we in this House impose solutions upon the people of Ireland but when we, with our unhappy history of interference in that island, have a situation in which we get the ordinary, representative Irish people around the table to decide their own future. The conclusion they must inevitably come to, as the Prorogation of that subordinate Parliament shows, is that there can only be an Ireland United in one form or another.

9.37 a.m.

Captain Orr: I simply want to say, as we come to the end of this long discussion on the Bill, a very brief word of appreciation to the Ministers who have sat through the night—and, indeed,

to others who have sat through the night—for their courtesy and forbearance. It was necessary, since we have a Bill bringing to an end for the time being representative government in a part of the United Kingdom, that this House should have proper opportunity of discussing it in full. Therefore I make no apology—I do not imagine anybody would expect one—for the fact that the House has sat for so many long hours.
We have had a remarkably full discussion, but I am bound to say at the end of the day that, however agreeable Ministers may have been, they have in fact presided over a very, very bad Bill The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke of arbitrary power. If ever there were arbitrary power, this is it. It is temporary, it is true, but arbitrary it is. All that one can do is to pray and hope that my right hon. Friend, shortly to be the Secretary of State, will be wise in the exercise of this Draconian authority.
I described this Bill at the beginning as a Bill of surrender. It is also a Bill which contains the seeds of division and dissolution. I pray to God that I may be wrong. I wish Ministers well in the effort to prove me so.

9.39 a.m.

Miss Devlin: It is not my intention at this hour of the morning to detain the House for long on Third Reading of the Bill. I have stated clearly why I felt it necessary for me to vote against the Bill before, and I still believe it necessary for me to vote against it if the House divides on Third Reading. The Bill, even as amended in Committee, still presents us with fundamental problems. While I am glad to see Stormont coming to an end, I do not believe that what we are replacing it with is essentially any better in the sense of moving towards democracy. It is just a more polite, more refined way of depriving the people in Northern Ireland of democracy.
I believe that the Secretary of State designate will find when he gets to Northern Ireland that many of the problems which have been spoken of in this House are less real than the kinds of problem he will meet there. The problem will not be whether things are dealt with in Orders in Council and whether under the affirmative or negative procedure, but whether


people believe him and accept his credibility, the work he is doing and his motivation. If he is to take any chance of using the breathing space the Tory Government have won—for themselves, not for the people of Northern Ireland—and if it is to be used in the interests of the people, he must view the demands made in Northern Ireland in terms of their hard reality.
I speak only for those demands made by the civil rights movement, the civil disobedience movement, the civil resistance movement. The right hon. Gentleman may well face a civil disobedience campaign from the Vanguard movement. He must remember that he still faces and will continue to face a civil disobedience campaign from the minority community, until such time as the last internee is released. There is no point in saying that that is not the case, because each organisation has said it is, and the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to realise that.
He would also be well advised to remember that despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said that he and his party are willing and eager to co-operate, my hon. Friend has also pointed out that he and his party are still unable to do so until the question of internment has been dealt with. I should like to bring the matter down to a practical level by telling the House of one person who has been interned, Mr. Sean Keenan, a man from the city of Derry, who is serving his 11th year in an internment camp, never having appeared in a court charged with as much as a motoring offence in his life. When he was released for 48 hours to bury his son in Derry some weeks ago I asked him his opinion on the phasing out of internment. That man, who is now 63 or 64 and who, with all respect to him, looks about 74 because of his life year after year in various camps, said, "Don't talk to me about phasing out internment. The last time they phased it out I waited four long years for my turn to come." That was quite true. He was one of the first to go in during the 1950s and on0e of the last out in the 1960s.
I ask the Secretary of State designate to remember that the words "phasing out internment" hold no reality for the internees. He may face another prob-

lem from the internees, in that they will not be prepared to play the game of hostages. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that 100 can go and if everybody outside behaves more will be released is to put the onus for the Government's own Special Powers Act on the wrong shoulders. The Special Powers Act and internment cannot be justified and explained away by saying, "If the men of violence stop the violence we shall stop our State official violence." That is not good enough, and it will not work, because the internees will not be prepared to play the rôle of hostages when it is said, "That hundred will go and this hundred will stay." They may well say that they are not going until they go as free men and no longer have to sign those ridiculous bits of paper. They may well say, "We are not going until you accept that internment was wrong and stop hounding men."
Again my advice to the Secretary of State is to stop hounding the men he has not yet managed to put in the camps. Let the men come home. Let them live with their families. If those men had the right to go home without fear of internment and were allowed to live with their families, the right hon. Gentleman would not have the problem of the so-called I.R.A. in the South. That is a practical problem which he will have to face.
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite realise what they will have to face from the Protestant population who now feel that they can no longer take the word of any Minister. They will be feeling the way the Catholic community have felt for 50 years. They will be putting the Minister's words to the test of credibility, and he will have to prove that he is prepared to be fair. To be fair is not to hammer one side as toughly as he hammered the other.
I wish to make it perfectly clear on behalf of the people I represent that if the Secretary of State designate signs an internment order for one solitary member of the Protestant community he will still have us to account to. We have fought a campaign against the internment of people without trial in Northern Ireland and we will not be told that it is now respectable, fair-minded and liberal legislation. Perhaps the people in Shankhill will have to face the


midnight searchings, the raids without warning, the driving off of their fathers and the building of separate internment camps in which to keep them.
Let the Minister and the Government be aware that we in the civil rights movement and the civil resistance movement will not stand for it. We will not just watch because British policy has changed. We are not prepared to see meted out to the Protestant population the treatment that has been meted out to us for 50 years.

9.46 a.m.

Mr. Biffen: Anyone who reflects on the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) will realise the tremendous burdens that bear upon the designate Secretary of State. I am sure that all on this side of the House, and the overwhelming majority of those on the Opposition benches, whatever reservations and hesitations they may have on the policy contained in the Bill, will extend to my right hon. Friend their heartfelt best wishes because they know that the task which he undertakes is one of the most formidable that could confront any person in British politics.
The Bill is about the assertion of authority, the assertion of the right to give law and the expectation that that law shall be observed. Nothing could be more thorough and precise than the wording of Clause 1(1)(b):
all functions which…belong…to…a department of the Government of Northern Ireland shall be discharged by the Secretary of State".
For our own political protection we must realise that this state of affairs has come about at least in part as a result of the determined action of those who are anarchistically motivated and who have had as their objective the overthrow of that citadel of authority, the Northern Ireland Stormont Parliament. But make no mistake, those people have as their objective the overthrow of that authority whether it derives from the Dail or from Westminster. That is one measure of the formidable undertaking which we have embarked upon.
We shall be obliged to see that there is the closest possible identification of the people to whom this law will apply with the new law-giving institutions, pre-eminent of which is the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member

for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) was quite right when he reminded us that we have just been given an initial inkling into what lies ahead now that the House takes upon itself through the Bill the intimate responsibilities for law giving and law enforcement in Northern Ireland. It places upon each and every one of us a solemn responsibility to be more intimately concerned with the affairs of our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland. The least we can offer is proper, full-hearted and detailed concern with the affairs of Northern Ireland.

9.50 a.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I join my right hon and hon. Friends in wishing well to the new Secretary of State. At the same time, however, at this late hour, particularly on probably his last day in office, I must pay a tribute to the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. His courage, leadership, faultless restraint and unashamed patriotism have been an example to all of us in Government and on the back benches alike. The sense of hurt is not confined to the loyal people of Ulster. In the clubs and pubs, the people I meet are shocked. They admired Mr. Faulkner and felt that he was treated unjustly. In all honesty, I cannot see how any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from this side of the water, for all his magnanimous intentions and for all the great respect in which we hold him, and even diligently assisted as he will be by able and liberal-minded lieutenants, is an advance. Even the Fine Gael party in the Republic regards the prorogation of Stormont as retrograde, as does that eminent nationalist Mr. Eddie McAteer.
I do not see how a Secretary of State, with quasi-viceregal powers, advised by an appointed Commission from which the majority have withdrawn their participation in advance, is somehow more competent than a locally-born and bred Prime Minister advised by a democratically-elected Cabinet and Parliament from which only the minority have withdrawn their support. How is the alienation of the majority preferable to the alienation of the minority? Now, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mis Devlin) has said, we have the alienation of both, and success in the anti-terrorist operations depends on the whole-hearted support of the majority just as much as terrorism


in Ulster is dependent on the enforced or freely-given support of the minority.
In opposing the Bill I am not expressing an aversion to political movement; indeed, it is the very fact that room for political manoeuvre is reduced which leads me to oppose it. The careful relaxation of internment could have won over the minority, but the destruction of the Northern Ireland constitution is a fatal blow to majority support. I am not averse to organic constitutional change or to reform by consent. But what happend in the inter-governmental negotiations was that proposals were put by Her Majesty's Government which they themselves knew must have been unacceptable to the Government of Northern Ireland. Further to suggest that the democratically-elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland are not even to be allowed responsibility for their own police is to deprive them not just of the responsibility of a coconut colony but of a county council, and that was bound to be unacceptable.
I wish the Secretary of State designate and his colleagues well, but I am afraid that in Ulster, as here, the Bill will be seen as an act of diktat imposed against the will of the majority; it will implicitly be construed as a victory for terrorism and inasmuch as that is so it is a defeat for us all.

9.55 a.m.

Mr. Fitt: I view the Third Reading of the Bill with mixed feelings. I have supported the Government on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage. It is with a certain amount of regret that I have found myself opposing Ulstermen throughout the Committee stage. As an Ulsterman, though a Roman Catholic, it was my hope that possibly there would be some common ground on which all Ulster representatives could find themselves acting in concert.
I agree with the Government in bringing Stormont to an end. I have always considered that Stormont, since its creation, was a total disaster. It did nothing to bring together the two communities in Northern Ireland. It only created a deep divide, with those in one section of the community feeling that they were an oppressed minority and those in the majority section deluded into believing

that somehow they were just that little better than those in the minority.
It was because of the existence of Stormont that we had such tragedy, and I do not just mean throughout the last three or four years since the beginning of the civil rights movement. We have had institutional violence. We have had violence by diktat. We have had violence by decree from Stormont and the agencies of Stormontat local authority level. After a 50-year trial period for this type of government, certainly we could not enter the second half-century with the prospect of continuing the disaster through which we have lived in Northern Ireland.
From different points of view, many of us do not find the Bill satisfactory. I applaud the demise of Stormont, whereas hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on the Unionist side will view the passing of Stormont with regret. But neither of us can be satisfied. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) has underlined the fact that unless and until the internment problem is settled there can be no hope of co-operation between the Secretary of State and the minority representatives in Northern Ireland. I recognise that there are many hon. Members on the Government side and a few on this side of the House who believe that we have adopted an intransigent attitude when we have talked of releasing internees on to the streets. I know that many Protestants in Northern Ireland say that every internee is a gunman, a bomber and a potential murderer, and that it is unrealistic for me and my colleagues to advocate the release of internees as they would continue their campaign of violence.
There are many violent men in Northern Ireland, and they are not confined to one section of the community. Even in the last two or three hours an attempt has been made on the life of my colleague in the S.D.L.P., Ivan Cooper, by placing a bomb under his car. It is possible that we shall never know who was responsible, but I do not believe that the bomb was planted by a member of the minority community. So it will be seen that there are violent men at work throughout Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading I said that I hoped the enactment of the Bill would in some way do something to de-escalate the


violence that we have seen for so long in Northern Ireland. If it gave us a breathing space, there would be many people throughout Northern Ireland, the island of Ireland and Great Britain who would say that the hours that we have spent here had been worth while. But we who represent Northern Ireland constituencies know only too well that this legislation has been bought at a terrible cost. There are thousands of people in Northern Ireland who have suffered grievous injury because of the campaign of violence. There are men, women, boys and girls who have lost their limbs. What will a united Ireland mean to them? They will never again have their full physical capabilities. They have paid a high price for the legislation which we are bringing in.
I regard this legislation as necessary but as coming far too late. I believe that Stormont should never have been created, because it was so symbolic of racial superiority of one section of the community over the other.
I believe that throughout the night and early hours of this morning Unionist Members here, from their point of view, from what they regard as being in the best interests of their constituents, have fought from their corner for what they believe to be right. I have been in that position for many years in both Stormont and, indeed, this House. When I have attempted to put forward my views I have seldom been on the winning side when the votes were cast. Therefore I do not regard this as a victory over the Unionist representatives here. I regard this legislation as a step towards sanity in Northern Ireland.
I and my party desperately want to give this legislation a chance to succeed. We will endeavour, if we are given the opportunity, to co-operate with the Secretary of State designate and the Ministers whom he may appoint to conduct Northern Ireland affairs. However, there is the obstacle of internment. We believe that the people who have been interned without trial should be released. We cannot accept that internment in any circumstances is justified. We believe that it is immoral and unjust.
I hope that this legislation will help to put an end to the violence. I hope that we will be given an opportunity to co-operate with the new Secretary of State and—I make this appeal—with the

Unionist representatives to whom we have been opposed for the past 50 years. Let us take this opportunity to try to build a new Northern Ireland and a new Ireland.

10.2 a.m.

Mr. McMaster: I shall deal very shortly with the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). At an earlier stage the hon. Gentleman mentioned that the duties of a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament at Westminster were restricted purely to the Army or foreign affairs. He will know that Short Bros., Harland and Wolff, and other such matters can easily be worked in. However, I do not intend to mention those matters now.
I should like my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to deal with certain points which I raised some 18 hours ago. I thought I had an understanding with the Secretary of State designate. Perhaps I was wrong. In Committee we had a debate on an Amendment which referred to the effects of prorogation on the Northern Ireland Parliament. Unfortunately my right hon. and learned Friend was not present at the time—nor indeed was there anybody in the Box—so he was not able to deal with the many interesting legal points raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides.
Has my right hon. and learned Friend now had an opportunity of looking into the points which were raised during that debate? Has he decided whether the Speaker of the House of Commons in Northern Ireland is the person who would be in a position to move a Writ if there were a decision to move a Writ to fill a vacancy? What would be the position if, as came out later in the debate, the Bill were extended for a number of years? Will there be any procedure to fill vacancies which may occur so that, if the Northern Ireland Parliament is restored, there will still be some semblance of a Parliament there?
What is the effect of prorogation on the quinquennial Act? Will it affect the life of Parliament? Will it be restricted to five years? If the Bill is extended, will Parliament come to an end in two or three years? Will there have to be a General Election in Northern Ireland? These are important matters. If my right hon. and learned Friend has had time to consider


them, perhaps he is in a position to deal with them.
I should say briefly, in reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), that as I see it the main sticking point is internment. In turn I should like to make a plea to the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I resent—as would any lawyer—the idea of internment without trial as much as any other hon. Member. I feel that it is an undesirable step. But the hon. Member himself referred to the fact that in Northern Ireland, sporadically over the the last 50 years, there has been a campaign of violence which, in the last two years, has escalated in an alarming fashion.
The hon. Member referred to the bomb placed in a car of his friend Mr. Ivan Cooper. I would refer to the cases concerning John Taylor, Senator Barnhill and others, and to the terrible incidents in the Abercorn Restaurant and Jock McGurk's Bar, when there were multiple deaths and horrible injuries. In one case one girl lost both her arms, one leg and an eye, and her sister lost a leg. What a tragedy that was for their family! That was just one of many similar tragedies. Furthermore, witnesses are intimidated and even shot. It seems important to me that the strongest measures should be taken to bring those responsible to trial. If it is found impossible to try them, at least they should be placed under restraint.
The Home Secretary referred to these people as psychopaths, and he might be right. Whether or not they are psychopaths, and whether or not they are responsible for their actions, there are people behind them who are planning these actions and supplying these persons with guns and arms. They must be rooted out and confined until the terrorism is over.
In the light of all those circumstances, I plead with the hon. Member for Belfast, West to agree that this legislation provides most of the things that he and his party have sought. Stormont has been suspended. I ask him and his party to sit round a table with us to try to thrash out the political solution on which the future of Ulster and the United Kingdom must depend.
Government depends on consent, and what we are in danger of losing in the Bill is the consent of the majority. When dealing with the doctrine of internment one must remember the effect upon the majority of these vile and atrocious actions. Is it reasonable to expect people to allow the Government to give up interment without showing some reaction? I ask the hon. Member to consider the number of deaths and injuries. I ask him and his friends to reflect on these points, to try to be reasonable and to come forward to the conference table.

10.8 a.m.

Mr. Derek Coombs: I shall speak very briefly in support of the Bill. Reason and common sense are not always attributes which can be plucked out of the maelstrom of Irish politics, but unless we find reasoned moderation there can be no hope. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have shown real guts in taking a decision which most Administrations, whatever the circumstances, would have shirked.
Whether or not one agrees with the initiative of the Government—and there are bound to be mixed feeling about this—what we must surely accept is that now that the decision has been reached there can be no going back. What is most important is the interpretation that will be given in Northern Ireland to the temper of this debate. Fortunately, it has been reasonably moderate. I hope that this moderation will continue outside.
We all share one common goal—to achieve peace, even though we may differ as to how best it may be achieved. Protestant feelings are understandably very sensitive, and I hope that we shall not do anything or say anything, however strongly we feel—and I am talking particularly about the next few weeks—which might encourage a backlash of any kind. That is precisely what the I.R.A. want.
The I.R.A. parade themselves as defenders of the Catholic community, and there is no doubt that many Catholics joined the I.R.A. not so much because they believed in them, only because they felt that they had no other alternative.
I think there are now clear signs that these people can be weaned away for they do not share the real aim of much of the I.R.A. hierarchy, which is the total


destruction of society as we know it throughout Ireland. To my mind these leaders of the I.R.A. are deeply disturbed by London's initiative and now rely wholly on threats of extremist Protestant feeling to secure their position again within the Catholic community. There can be no doubt that if this is not forthcoming the I.R.A. will ultimately wither away. Surely it is right therefore to ask Protestant fellow citizens to dignify themselves and their cause by acting responsibly and helping to work out sensible proposals with the new Secretary of State.
I do not believe that any solution can honourably fail to take account of the wishes of the majority, and I am talking not just about the Border, which has already been guaranteed, but also about the composition of government which one hopes will be reborn in Northern Ireland and ultimately developed on a non-sectarian basis. If the British Government were foolish enough to take any decision which did not take rightful account of the majority interest, that must surely be the time for Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Craig to adopt a policy of non-co-operation. But this is not that time, certainly not now. Otherwise, they will not only play into the hands of the I.R.A. but will demonstrate that they are no better than some of the people they despise.
Surely a politician cannot talk about law and order in government and then not strongly condemn anarchy and disruption outside. Putting it mildly or obliquely is not enough. These double standards only encourage hooliganism by the minority—we have seen this with the Tartan Gang already—and awaken cynicism about their leaders' interpretation of right and wrong which seems dependent on whether they are in or out of office. Mr. Craig should ponder on this, for he and other leaders, particularly Mr. Faulkner, will have the most important part to play in the reconstruction and rebuilding of the land they love, and I refer only to Northern Ireland. It would indeed be tragic and ironic if these same leaders who have dedicated themselves to the destruction of the I.R.A. should unwittingly encourage its continued existence and so guarantee it a permanent rôle in the life of their country.
If there is a time for moderation and an opportunity for peace, it is surely now.

I wish my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of State well in what is a tremendous task and congratulate him on his choice of junior ministers. In all I think he has an excellent team which must surely have the best chance of stopping the senseless killing, but he is certainly going to need every ounce of support that we in the House of Commons can muster.

10.13 a.m.

Mr. Orme: Those of us who have been in this Chamber since 3.30 p.m. yesterday have experienced an historic occasion. The debate has been conducted in a manner in which I hope the debate will continue in Northern Ireland. All hon. Members will agree that there have been forthright speeches and points of view have been expressed in a way which was a credit to the House during the last 12 or 14 hours. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) had the courage openly to criticise Mr. Craig and Mr. Faulkner forthrightly in a similar way to the criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) of both wings of the I.R.A.
This Bill gives us a fresh chance, not to resolve the problem but to make a start. That is why I am pleased that good humour has been shown in discussion of the Amendments. I do not think we could have an Irish debate in which no humour was involved.
The strikes and demonstrations which have occurred recently, and the alliance which seems to have sprung up between Mr. Craig and Mr. Faulkner, appear to indicate that the trouble is far from over. If all options are left open, so that all issues can be discussed, if we do not try to sweep our differences under the carpet, if we say that the Border is an issue and should be debated in an open political manner, we have a chance at least of examining the problems. We have a chance of giving reassurance to the minority and at this time to the majority.
The people of Northern Ireland must be reminded of the responsibility Britain has in terms of finance. We must remind them that the British people might not take it too kindly if opportunities are missed when they are provided under the Bill.
There are the major problems or the Special Powers Act, internment, and the fact that Stormont has been prorogued. I hope that we can get some understanding. Everybody has expressed his views freely and frankly. Hon. Members know that I favour a united Ireland. I believe that it will come inevitably, but I do not believe that it will come by trying to force either the majority or the minority into accepting something they do not want. I believe, however, that perhaps more quickly than many people think, they will come to accept such a change. In the last two years we have seen changes of such a nature that anything could happen. We could move either to disaster or to a peaceful solution.
The Secretary of State designate has a very difficult job ahead of him. He goes into it with a great deal of good will from the House of Commons. He will not have unlimited time. We often talk about the honeymoon period in Ireland. I was in Northern Ireland when the Labour Government sent British troops there at the request of the minority to protect the minority. At that time I said to Ministers, "The Catholic community welcome British troops, but it will not be for an indefinite period. Things can and will change". The right hon. Gentleman must strike while the iron is hot to try to get some détente, to take the heat out of the present situation.
It will not be easy. People will not forget either 50 or 300 years of history. Those of us who have taken part throughout the whole of this three-day debate know that history plays a large part in the Irish question. We are now in 1972. I am one who has consistently taken the side of the minority in regard to civil rights. I want the people of Northern Ireland to have the same rights as all other people in the United Kingdom have. I take that stand purely on that basis.
Those of us on this side who have spent the night here have not done this out of any spirit of antagonism towards the Protestant majority. I recognise that they are working people and that they have a right to a place in the sun. They have fears which must be allayed. I believe that it can be done. I believe that many of their fears are unjustified and misguided, but their fears do exist. We have seen that from some of the speeches,

not least from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Nevertheless I believe that a meeting can be arranged and I hope that this Bill will be the beginning of the meeting.

10.21 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not intend to detain the House for long. We have had a long, strong, hard, sometimes humorous and sometimes serious debate, and I think it has been in the highest standards of the traditions of British democracy.
My heart tonight is sore after the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). Hers was a speech of hopelessness, that one section of the community, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, will bitterly oppose all the legislation we will have passed, and that another section of the community might take a similar road.
I have at least 30,000 Roman Catholics in my constituency, and I think they will all bear me out that since I became their Member of Parliament I have not treated them as second-class citizens. I have fought their cases and worked for them. The hon. Lady's speech makes us sad tonight. We have fought the Bill and I will vote against the Third Reading. But the time has come when all sections of the community should learn that the battles can be fought and the points of view can be made on the Floor of this Parliament. After the points are made, the battles fought and the Amendments dealt with we all have a responsibility to put our shoulders to the wheel.
I have been in prison and I know the rigours of imprisonment. I know how the men feel in Long Kesh—I have been to Long Kesh—and I know that they feel bitter, because when I was in prison I felt resentment that I was not allowed to call witnesses who should have been called on my case. These men have not been charged. No one has said what they are guilty of. I have taken a consistent stand on this thorny problem. The Secretary of State-designate has a terrible task before him in Northern Ireland. But the sad and terrible thing is that if the wisdom that is being expressed tonight in the House had been expressed at the beginning of the troubles, perhaps we would not have gone so far down the slippery slope. We all learn by our mistakes. These men, if they have committed crimes, must in some way be tried.


As a Member of the Stormont Parliament I asked the Attorney-General there if he had any evidence of juries bringing in perverse verdicts, and he said he had no such evidence. I asked him if he had evidence of the police and juries being intimidated in the mass, and he said "No." Charges should be brought against these men, the courts opened, the men who are accused should hear who accuses them, and they should be tried. They should be convicted if they are guilty. If they cannot be charged, if no one can come forward and lay charges against them in a legal manner, then, no matter what the suspicion may be, it is surely the elementary basis of British democracy that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: On that point, does my hon. Friend take the view that it would be perfectly in accordance with the feelings of Ulstermen if they were to be tried in this country? If there be fear of intimidation, and if evidence is sufficient, there is no reason why those who would be standing their trial should be brought over and tried here rather than in Ulster.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I would agree with that absolutely. Whether the people who were being tried would agree would be another matter; but I certainly would agree.
In conclusion, I want to leave the matter of internment, because there was one matter on which there was full agreement among all the Ulstermen here and that was that the ban on parades over Easter should be lifted. That brought universal agreement from the Imperial Grand Master of the Orange Institute, the leaders of the civil rights movement and the Republicans in the House.
If the Secretary of State-designate were able to say that the traditional parades could take place—I would not say that he should encourage any other parades, but at this time the traditional parades of both sides, religious and political—and that within their district people would be free to demonstrate, that would be the first thing that would bring some normality to the situation. Whether the House likes it or not, the Ulster people, the Irish people, like to parade and demonstrate, and they like to march. If this was possible it may, in this very tense situation, in some way pour oil on

what could be very troubled waters indeed.
But let us not lose heart. I believe that all people in Ulster, whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant, are at heart very lovable and likeable people. In the darknesss that is upon Ulster at present there is still burning a light, and by the assistance of the House that light can shine the way to what I think is the first priority. Here I part company with hon. Members opposite. The first priority, on which even they could go along the road with me part of the way, is a united Ulster. When we have a united Ulster, then we can move forward to better days of peace, prosperity and progress. Please God that those days will come more quickly than any of us at the moment can anticipate.

10.28 a.m.

Mr. Duffy: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in saying how reassured I was on occasions during the night by the manner in which we conducted our proceedings, and how reassured I was for the most part. For this hon. Members on all sides of the House are responsible, none excepted.
However, on such occasions, especially on Third Reading, there is always the danger that in the customary welter of mutual admiration and self-congratulation certain unsatisfactory features may be glossed over. I want to mention three features that disturb me. I shall do so very briefly.
The first is the continued evidence that we had during the night from the Ulster Unionist Members of their failure still to recognise that the protests of the minority in Northern Ireland had their roots in discernible discrimination, in substandard housing, in unemployment and, above all, in a lack of civil rights. I ask them not to carry their defence of the institutions of Northern Ireland or of its great achievements over the last 50 years to the point of utter intransigence, otherwise they will make all the more difficult, if not impossible, the future rôles and responsibilities of their right hon. Friend and his colleagues.
Secondly, I point out to hon. Members opposite representing English constituencies who, in some instances, during the night seemed too ready to support this


intransigence that they may be doing a disservice, not only to their own party but to Northern Ireland, by continuing to nurture the siege mentality that is still all too expressive of Ulster Unionism. This is why I greatly regretted the Government's acceptance of Amendment No. 53. I pointed out when the Amendment was being discussed that there was no question that change should be made on the basis of consent. It is interesting to note that this has been stressed time and again in the House and outside. I know of scarcely anyone who does not subscribe to this view. This is why I thought it might be counter-productive if we went on reassuring Northern Ireland that no change was contemplated, and it is why I agreed very much with the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
It seemed to me that the logic of accepting the Amendment must lead to further assurances of the kind asked for by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) which might have an inhibiting effect on future developments. This is why I put it to the Secretary of State designate that he might find his room for manoeuvre seriously limited and that he has even more options than we suspect.
I was not surprised that of all the things said during the night's debate, acceptance of Amendment No. 53 was the only item mentioned on the 8.30 news summary this morning. The B.B.C. could hardly mention many of the things that were said, but it mentioned acceptance of the Amendment and went on to say, in bold terms, that it meant that there should be no change in the Border. I cannot believe that the majority in Northern Ireland will be any more reassured by that, for many of the reasons given a few hours ago. But I ask hon. Members to contemplate the possible effect on the minority and on the work of the Secretary of State designate and his colleagues.
Having mentioned three features of our discussions which have depressed me, I go on to say that hon. Members will know from my earlier remarks that I attach the utmost importance to economic development. Ireland has had more than its fill of political discussion, and even discussion on other matters, such as religious questions. It is about time we began to recognise the economic develop-

ments which are afoot. Taking an objective view, I believe that there will be change of a far-reaching character, and perhaps even the transformation which my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West suggested. All I ask of hon. Members is that they recognise the possible economic developments. I do not say that they are inevitably bound up with Common Market membership. They are more likely to be speeded up and acted upon if we do not go into the Common Market. Anyone who considers the economic changes which are afoot, not only in Western Europe but especially in Ireland—in the South as well as in the North—knows that they will eventually take charge of the situation whether we like it or not. We must harness those changes in a positive and constructive way.
I look forward to continued discussions at this level, especially of the kind that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned. He said that he looked forward to an early debate on the Border and on the economic questions. I look forward to hearing his contributions to those discussion. I welcome all the hon. Gentleman's contributions. In recent months it has seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman has been much more credible—and I say this with the greatest respect to Ulster Unionist Members—and has been perhaps the authentic voice of many of the majority in Northern Ireland. Having said that, I hope he will accept in the best possible spirit what I now wish to say.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North did not spare my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) during the night when he reminded him of his reluctance to join in committee work at Stormont. I value the presence of the hon. Gentleman so much that I have noticed his attendances in this House during the last year. We shall not have that constructive debate about Northern Ireland, as well as the chance to examine Northern Ireland legislation in which we on these benches will want to play as full a part as we are permitted and the economic questions which will show whether there is any ground for an adjustment of the Border, unless the hon. Gentleman is here more than once or twice a fortnight.
I say to the hon. Gentleman in the best possible spirit that I look forward to


his being here, like the rest of us, if not on four days a week—I know of the other claims on his time and that there is not a busier man in the House—on at least three days a week. We need his contributions, and I hope that they will be on the lines which, as he recognised this morning, are required. That is the kind of contribution I want to make, and I look forward to joining the hon. Gentleman in dealing with these matters.

10.36 a.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wish to say briefly why I cannot support the Bill. It could lead in one of two directions. It could lead to the total, unquestioned and inalienable integration of Ulster with the United Kingdom, in which case I should not wish to have done anything to prevent or impede it because I believe that that is now the best course. I cannot see, any more than Members on either side of the House can see, our simply returning in 12 months to the constitution of Stormont which we have suspended. I do not think history ever turns itself back in that identical way. Therefore, if the Bill leads to total integration it will have been a good thing, even though some of the incidents attending the doing of it may not command the consent of all of us.
But there is the other possibility which remains open and which, in my opinion, could lead to disaster, and that is that the Bill will lead to an attempt to integrate Ulster, against its will, with the South of Ireland. I know that guarantees have been given about the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, but there are more ways of killing a chicken than by wringing its neck. If once an attitude of defeatism is launched, with the prestige of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom behind it, I can foresee great troubles arising in Ireland.
If my right hon. Friend who is to take responsibility in Ulster wishes to ask himself an appropriate question, it should not be the question proposed many times during the night. The single question which he should ask is this: will violence—murder, explosions, arson and all the rest—have produced for Southern Irish irredentism anything which it would not have achieved without violence? If so, a most dangerous step will have been

taken. Violence must not be seen to have paid. Militancy must not be seen to have paid.
All too often since the end of the war British Governments—indeed, in some respects. Western Governments—have suffered from this disease of compromising with violence, of buying off awkward situations by compromise. If the Bill were in the end to result in such a situation in Ireland that people would say that violence had paid a dividend once again, boundaries of surrender would have reached into the United Kingdom. Let us not imagine that we are being fanciful about that. It is, after all, only a week ago since Bristol Council appeared to be about to refuse the Royal Gloucesters the right to march through the city lest that might cause offence to the Irish population in it. So far can surrender and compromise go once we begin on this dangerous path.
All too often it has seemed to me in the last 20 or 25 years that the most dangerous thing one could be in the world was a friend of Britain. If one were loyal, if one's only desire was to be loyal and friendly to Britain, British Governments seemed to think that the wise and statesmanlike course was to sacrifice one and one's interests in an attempt to placate enemies. That is the danger.
In saying these things I do not accuse my right hon. Friend of intending such a thing. I certainly do not. I trust that things will turn out quite the opposite, but we have had no indication of how the Bill is to be used. I do not necessarily complain about that. It may tactically be the right thing to do, but we have had no indication of what the future shape of things in Ireland is to be. There are two possibilities. One I would support, the other I would deplore; and because there is no indication and the field is wide open I do not feel I can properly support the Bill on Third Reading.

10.42 a.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: There has been some disagreement over the last two days and particularly in the last 19 consecutive hours and this has been mainly amongst Ulster Unionists, a group of the Government party, and the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), but over all there has been a remarkable unanimity. That is, I concede, because the Government have come round to a


view which we on this side have expressed over recent months but also because, I believe, all of us have recognised the grave danger which faces this country and the Government in Ireland.
If it is not a trite thing to say, particularly at this time of the morning, there are times when this House recognises an occasion and rises to heights, and I believe it has done so in the face of the problems in Ireland in recent weeks. I took part in a three-party television broadcast about Ireland this week and I can only hope that some future historian will not find the film and believe it typical, because he would be wrong. Like others amongst my hon. Friends, I can only hope that the tolerance which has been shown here, not only by the Members from Britain but by those from the United Kingdom generally, will be shown in Northern Ireland itself. It is easier said than done. The atmosphere there is completely different. However, there are signs of hope even there that that can be done.
As a last resort we are shortly to have a Secretary of State, the chief executive—which, we have learned, was the description used in the original legislation—who is to be responsible for the North of Ireland. There are many problems to be settled. We are at the beginning and not the end. The first of the many problems will be the setting up of the Commission. It does not look hopeful, but even should it fail it will not mean that the initiative of the Government will not be able to be followed. We in this House still have problems of accountability. These remain to be dealt with.
On behalf of the Opposition side of the House I prefer to leave it at that. I repeat what has been said so many times: we wish the right hon. Gentleman well. History repeats itself. We in this House have been discussing Ireland as happened on so many occasions in the nineteenth century, and we have learned in the night that some of it we shall not like, but I hope that on this occasion we shall make a better success of it than we did the last time we had full responsibility.

10.46 a.m.

Mr. Maginnis: No one will disagree with me when I say we have had a hard day's night. We have discussed this

Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill for many long hours. I am sure no one will disagree with me when I say that nothing is as permanent as temporary measures. I believe that this Measure itself will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland. They will be solved only by the people who live in Northern Ireland. I have never had objections to closer links with this country. As I said earlier, originally the Unionists did not want Ireland divided and Stormont was accepted only as a compromise.
Two questions will remain in the minds of many people. The first one is this. Does this Measure, shortly to become law, mean a move to a United Ireland or integration? The second question to be asked is whether this is the historic break-up of the United Kingdom. Only history can answer those questions. It will take the wisdom of a Solomon to solve the difficulties which we now face in Northern Ireland, but let it be remembered that when Solomon was asked to decide who was the owner of the child he decided that the only way he could do so would be by dividing the child in half; it was then that he discovered who the real mother was. If Ulster starts to tear herself apart, then indeed it will be found who the people are who really believe that Ulster will have a future within the United Kingdom.
I am convinced that passing the Bill will not solve the problem. All we are doing is not getting rid of a turbulent priest in Northern Ireland but unfrocking him for a period of one year.

10.48 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: I believe this to be a better Bill because of the Amendments which have been made to it during this long sitting. What has again emerged from these many hours of debate is that the Government policy is to preserve Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. However, I believe that it is a dangerous Bill because the minority will demand further concessions and the majority will resent its contents.
One of the results of this Bill is that it will remove Stormont. I use the word "remove" because I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel in their heart of hearts that Stormont will never be recreated, anyhow in its present


form. This will at least show the minority that reforms passed by Stormont will go through.
What worried me when talking to Catholics in Northern Ireland was that none of them believed that the reforms thought of in this House and initiated by the Government in Northern Ireland would actually become effective after the shooting stopped. Now they will realise that the discrimination from which Catholics in Northern Ireland have suffered for so many years will finally be removed. I fear that this will, unfortunately, not be enough and that further concessions will be demanded. It will be we in this Parliament who will have to decide these issues.
History has always shown that Irishmen from north or south of the Border resent legislation about their country from this Parliament. Indicative of that is this debate, which during the long hours of the night, having been conducted at the highest standard of moderation, has run through one day and is well into the next. This is only the start, and Government managers will no doubt be taking note of how Irish hon. Members have throughout history clogged the business of this House; this matter affects the future of all in Britain.
I believe that the Bill will attract the moderates and that there is no better man than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State-designate to put these reforms in to effect. I am sure that he appreciates that speed is of the essence. Irishmen—I can say this because I have Irish blood in my veins—are governed by their emotions, and emotions favour extremism on both sides. I hope that the provisions of this Measure will end the violence. Both communities want it to end, and the leaders of both communities must work together to end it.
However, we must realise that only some 2 per cent. of the people who form the minority of Northern Ireland actively support the I.R.A. We are told that this Bill will detach the majority of this minority from its support of the I.R.A. I hope that that is true, but the position would be even worse if 2 per cent. of the majority took similar action and received similar tacit support from the majority community. This is one of the great dangers that I see in the Bill.

The only hope of ending violence in Ireland would then be the imposition of martial law or the Republican Government in the south controlling the I.R.A., and neither course is likely.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that the real danger to Ireland, south and north of the Border, is that the regular I.R.A. is now a Marxist organisation which will leave no stone unturned to proceed to create a united Republican Ireland which it has maintained will become the Cuba of Europe.
The Bill is full of good intentions, and I accept that my right hon. Friend is the right man to put them into effect. Nevertheless, I believe that the answer could have been effected in quite a different way; by the integration of Northern Ireland as a British county shorn perhaps of the predominantly 90 per cent. Catholic parts on the Border. It is because it could in my view have been done in another way and because of the two basic dangers to which I have referred that I have abstained from voting through the passage of this Bill.
The first danger I see inherent in the Bill is the backlash which could cause a reaction against British troops by both communities. That in turn could cause a demand in this country for the withdrawal of our men, similar to the demand for American forces to be withdrawn from Vietnam. If that were to happen, there would be civil war throughout the whole of Ireland.
The second danger I see inherent in the Bill is that of the growth of the now Marxist regular I.R.A. in the South. In that event, its first target will not be this House but the Government of Southern Ireland, and its second target the Roman Catholic Church, and that is something about which I feel extremely deeply. I very much hope that I shall be proved wrong. I cannot believe that the Bill is the right way of handling the dangerous situation, and that is why I cannot support it.

10.55 a.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) drew attention to a recent outrage in Northern Ireland. Alas, in these troubled times far worse things have happened. However, perhaps it is appropriate for a


Catholic Unionist hon. Member to express his abhorrence of what appears to have been an attempt on the life of a Protestant member of the S.D.L.P.
This is, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out, a time for traditional parades, and I am all for them. It is also the season when Catholics and Protestants remember that they not only have a common homeland but share a common baptism.
What have we done during these long and courteous hours of debate? This Measure does not totally integrate Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom, a solution which I would not, at any rate at present, support. We are suspending eventual self-government in Northern Ireland with much the same alacrity as that Parliament of Cromwell, whose curse lies heavily on Ireland, extinguished the parliamentary process throughout Ireland.
Like Cromwell, we have replaced a Parliament with government by semi-dictatorial decree, this at a time when people are talking about the need for devolution throughout the United Kingdom. Indeed, a Commission on the Constitution is considering these matters. Moreover, this is being done at a time when criticism is made—it has been made throughout these debates, especially from the benches opposite—of conditions in Southern Ireland, where it is said that there is an anachronistic theocracy and where democracy is not up to date and modern. There is at least a parliament there. There is to be no parliament in the North.
The legacy of British rule in Ireland was two parliaments, one established in Dublin under Treaty and the other established at Stormont under the Government of Ireland Act.
I agreed very much with the moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). The tribute he paid to Mr. Faulkner might decently also have been given—and perhaps it will come—from the Treasury Bench. To the list of distinguished Southern Irish figures who deplore the suspension of Parliament in the North, one might add the name of Connor Cruse O'Brien. We have placed the Parliament of the North in the freezer.
Stormont, with all its faults—there has been a great deal of prejudice and injustice about it—has been a bastion of British influence and defensive strategy. That bastion has fallen at a time when Northern Ireland, in this third world war—that is what it is; a third world war of international subversion and guerrilla—is just as vital to Britain as it was in the two world wars of the submarine conflict, when its ports, as Michael Collins said, were essential to our life.
Those of us who have opposed this Measure from the start and who will vote against its Third Reading pledge to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State designate and his junior colleagues any help that we can give them, including help for constitutional order and the restoration of peace in Northern Ireland.
I must warn them, however, that they may feel the wind blow cold as they camp beneath the walls of the fallen bastion. The Bill is the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill. Let us make sure that it lives—or, rather, dies—up to its name.

11.0 a.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I believe that, last Friday, the Government took a wrong turning, and the legislation which we have debated now over the past 27 hours, because it represents the enactment of those policy decisions, is, in my judgment, equally misguided. Nevertheless, three important factors have emerged from our discussions during the past two days.
The first is that many right hon. and hon. Members who have been in the Chamber during our debates, and the House as a whole, probably now appreciate as never before the complexities of the problems likely to be faced during the next 12 months. For too long, perhaps, the attitude taken, and understandably so, by many hon. Members was, "Leave Ulster affairs to the Northern Ireland Members". That can no longer be anyone's position, and I earnestly hope that those who have stayed during these hours do not feel that the complexities and difficulties are as insuperable as, perhaps, they had previously imagined.
The second important factor emerging from deliberations is the incorporation of


certain Amendments in the Bill. Obviously, the Bill is better for them. I cannot help wondering how many mistakes we shall make over the next 12 months, during the period of government by decree in matters relating to Stormont legislation, even with the improvements which the House has made in this Bill.
The third factor—I speak here with absolute sincerity—is the approach which I believe, we shall all make to these great problems from now on. There have been disagreements on the Bill, but I suspect that it is more than likely that, in a few minutes, it will pass its Third Reading. Let us have no illusions, once it is passed. If the package fails, it will not be this House which will lose. It will be the people of Northern Ireland who will lose. Therefore, we must all realise—certainly, all Ulster Members, even though we have disagreed on the Bill, realise it—that it is our own people who are the losers, and one's sense of responsibility must come to the fore once the Bill is enacted.
None the less, I am bound to feel profoundly sad, as any Ulster Unionist must at this time, because we are legislating for the interment of Stormont for 12 months. Perhaps the only joy now for an Ulster Unionist can be the hope, a hope frequently expressed from the Government Front Bench, which I fervently share, that in the not-too-distant future Stormont will once again become a legislative Assembly.

11.3 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I suppose that I may be the last person to speak in the debate upon this momentous Bill, and I recognise that I am very much the pale shadow of my right hon. Friend the Lord President as I substitute for him now. This is, I imagine, the last time that I shall be able to call him the Lord President, because I hope this evening, when the Bill has become law, to be present when he is sworn in as Secretary of State.
I have a certain claim, however, to make the closing speech in the debate, for I shall have imposed upon myself grave responsibilities in becoming Attorney-General for Northern Ireland when the Bill is enacted. In this context I wish to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr.

McMaster), who put down a certain Amendment which was not called. Despite the provisions in the Bill regarding the position which, by virtue of my post here in England, I shall now have in Northern Ireland, I applied, before my hon. Friend put down his Amendment, to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland to seek to be called to the Bar of Northern Ireland, quite independently of any matters in the Bill. I shall take upon myself many responsibilities with regard to the prosecution of offences and matters of law and order in Northern Ireland.
No one who has listened to the debate or who has an ounce of sense or heart in him can but realise how important this issue is. Whatever the Tightness or wrongness of the decision taken, it is a decision of the greatest importance, and it imposes upon all of us in the House, because of the means and form of legislation in the future, a great responsibility towards the lives and security of human beings, fellow citizens of the United Kingdom living in Northern Ireland.
During our 27 hours of debate many right hon. and hon. Members have been present throughout every hour of it, though not, perhaps, as many as are present now. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) who said that those of us who have been here throughout the debate will not, perhaps, be altogether surprised now to realise that Irishmen can get on together, even across the Floor of the House of Commons. Having served in an Irish regiment and having had the honour and privilege to command Irish soldiers, from both North and South, I know very well that, basically, of course, Irishmen can all get on together. As for the shades of a Scottish Grand Committee or a Welsh Grand Committee, I can only say that Northern Ireland Members have shown themselves not one bit more frail than those hon. Members who represent Scottish or Welsh constituencies.
We have had warnings and pronouncements of what the consequences of the Bill may be, and it has been suggested by some that the step which we are taking can lead only to failure. I do not subscribe to that view. No one who has had anything to do with this Measure, however, has any illusions about the


problems which we face. It is in no spirit of surrender to violence or terrorism that the Bill has been introduced—not in the least—and, if it had been so, I do not for a moment believe that my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friends who are here now would have joined in presenting the Bill to the House.
The Bill has been presented because it gives a better chance of tackling the situation, a better chance of dealing with the problems of Ireland, a better chance of leading to conversation, to talk, to settlement and to the solution of this centuries-old problem.
I well recognise the great sincerity of those of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland constituencies who have spoken on these great issues. None could fail to be impressed by the way in which they have both presented their case and debated it throughout all these hours. They have made their position clear, and I realise that they will vote against the Bill on Third Reading, but I ask them thereafter to join with my right hon. Friend in the venture now before us, to which he has dedicated himself, because it is only with the will of all, and principally the will of the House of Commons, that this venture can be brought to a conclusion. If it reaches the right conclusion, as we all earnestly hope it will, it will give a prize beyond price. I commend the Bill to the House.

11.9 a.m.

Mr. Kilfedder: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that the consensus of

the House is that it would like to come to a decision. I feel that the hon. Member would be well advised not to intervene now, but, if he insists, I must call him.

Mr. Kilfedder: I shall detain the House for only two minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hate to disappoint my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his thought that his speech would be the last, but I think it right and appropriate that an Ulster Unionist should have the last word in a debate which sees the demise of Stormont. Moreover I wish to join in the tributes paid to Stormont, echoing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson).
There are people in Northern Ireland who are confused and who do not know what the future holds for them. If I had the scriptural knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), no doubt I could give an appropriate quotation.
I say to the people of Northern Ireland that we in the House of Commons, on both sides of the House, will now be looking after affairs in Northern Ireland, certainly for this year to come, and they need not fear that Ulster's future will not be looked after. Secondly, I say to the people in Northern Ireland that they should have no fears for the future.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time: —

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 13.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[11.11 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Drayson, G. B.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dykes, Hugh


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Benyon, W.
Channon, Paul
Eyre, Reginald


Biffen, John
Chapman, Sydney
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Blaker, Peter
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clark, William (Surrey E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fowler, Norman


Boscawen, Robert
Conlan, Bernard
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Coombs, Derek
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Goodhew, Victor


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Gorst, John


Bray, Ronald
Crowder, F. P.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dalyell, Tam
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Buck, Antony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.




Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh
Rost, Peter


Hannam, John (Exeter)
McCrindle, R. A.
Royle, Anthony


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hastings, Stephen
McNamara, J. Kevin
Scott, Nicholas


Hattersley, Roy
Madel, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Havers, Michael
Mather, Carol
Sharples, Richard


Hawkins, Paul
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hayhoe, Barney
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moate, Roger
Simeons, Charles


Heseltine, Michael
Money, Ernle
Skinner, Dennis


Hiley, Joseph
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Morrison, Charles
Spearing, Nigel


Holland, Philip
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Speed, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Sproat, Iain


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patrick
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stallard, A. W.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Neave, Airey
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Normanton, Tom
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hunt, John
O'Halloran, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Taverne, Dick


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Orme, Stanley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pardoe, John
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Jessel, Toby
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Peel, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Jopling, Michael
Pendry, Tom
Trew, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kershaw, Anthony
Perry, Ernest G.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Kinsey, J. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Waddington, David


Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Weatherill, Bernard


Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lambton, Lord
Redmond, Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Lane, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Whitlock, William


Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Luce, R. N.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas.


MacArthur, Ian




NOES


Chichester-Clark, R.
Maude, Angus
Winterton, Nicholas


Devlin, Miss Bernadette
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Kilfedder, James
Molyneaux, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McManus, Frank
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Captain L.P.S. Orr and


McMaster, Stanley
Pounder, Rafton
Mr. Biggs-Davison.


Maginnis, John E.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

DEPOSIT OF POISONOUS WASTE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have the Government given notice in regard to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill that they will move a manuscript Amendment that that Bill will apply to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That Bill is now disposed of in the House of Commons.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3

OPERATORS OF COMMERCIAL TIPS

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 25, after "of" insert "not more than".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. John Silkin: The point of the Amendment is very clear. One obviously cannot have a fixed fine—that is not something we normally have in our law—but I hope that when the permanent legislation comes along the Government will consider a maximum fine far greater than £400. It seems to me that the deliberate deposit of, for


example, cyanide drums merits even on summary conviction a fine a great deal more than is provided in the Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. As he rightly points out, the purpose of the Amendment is to avoid laying a fixed fine on the magistrates' court. The right hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that there could be circumstances in which it would be quite wrong to impose a large fine, as, for instance, where the offence was really no more than a slip of the pen. However, I take the point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recognise the need for what the right hon. Gentleman suggests.

Question put and agreed to.

Title

Lords Amendment No. 6: In line 3, after "hazard" insert
and to make offenders liable for any resultant damage".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Perhaps at this point I may say that we on this side of the House have been extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and members of his party for the way in which they have expedited this necessary legislation through its stages in this House.

Question put and agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising this day do adjourn till Monday, 10th April.—[Mr. Maudling.]

11.22 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: An important question of principle is involved here, and yesterday the acting Leader of the House and I had some exchanges about it. The House is being asked to agree to an unprecedented procedure. It is quite true that there have been occasions when, on the day before the House has risen for a Recess a Motion of this kind has been tabled, but that happens

only very rarely. The usual practice is for a Motion such as this to appear on the Order Paper some days before the actual Adjournment is due to take place. There is absolutely no precedent whatsoever for tabling this kind of Motion at the end of Government business.
This is a dangerous precedent. In the past, such a Motion has come up for discussion at 3.30, at the end of Questions, and that practice has provided back-bench Members with an opportunity to raise various matters which lead them to think that the House should not adjourn until the problems involved in those matters have been dealt with.
The practice that has been followed by the Government in this instance represents a diminution in the rights of private Members. When questioned on the subject yesterday, the acting Leader of the House said that the situation was very abnormal, but in my view this Motion should have been tabled last week. There was no reason for its not having been tabled, say, last Thursday, instead of the Government using the excuse of the Irish problem for dealing with the Motion in this way. I should like a categorical assurance from the Government that this present instance, which is without precedent, will never be repeated and will, indeed, not be regarded as a precedent.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asked in specific terms:
Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to do it again?
The acting Leader of the House replied:
I accept that it is a wholly abnormal procedure. It is quite unavoidable in the circumstances."—[Official Report 29th March, 1972; Vol. 834, c. 439.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not give the undertaking for which he had been asked, and I ask him to give it now. If we allow what perhaps I may be permitted to call this unprecedented precedent to go without challenge, it will represent a diminution of the rights of hon. Members.
I want to draw to the attention of the Government the hardship suffered by owner-occupiers, referred to in early day Motion No. 264. The Government have promised legislation to deal with the type of case in which an owner-occupier who has agreed to buy a house for £3,000 or £4,000 is, as the result of a compulsory


purchase order, offered only £500 or £600 for his house. I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, but I should like to quote the case of a constituent who bought his house in 1963 for £3,200. He paid £950 cash down, and obtained an advance of £2,250 by way of mortgage from the Greater London Council. As a result of a compulsory purchase order made several years later, he is now being offered only £500 or £600 for the House.
That case is typical of many cases in which owner-occupiers are brought to the verge of destitution and ruin as a result of the operation of present legislation. As I say, we have been promised some legislation by the Government, but I seek to impress upon the acting Leader of the House the need to bring the matter to the notice of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment so that these cases of cruel hardship may be dealt with at the earliest possible moment.

11.29 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I wish to draw attention to the likely "go slow" being proposed by B.E.A. pilots backed by the British Air Line Pilots Association. It seems that quite regularly nowadays employees in the aviation industry choose holiday periods to disrupt air services. The pilots have done this before, and it now appears to be happening again. The B.E.A. pilots are apparently in dispute with the airline on a number of points, but the basic issue is a pay increase. They have said that if it had been conceded all the other differences could have been resolved.
In the past year the airline has lost £2 million, notwithstanding the fact that the Government have made available to it special grants of about £8 million. The pilots are asking for a rise at the top level of about 12 per cent. They have already been offered £782 to £981, which is £14 to £18 a week—a rather bigger rise than the total income of some of our old-age pensioners. The pilots are men who by any standards are very high earners at the top level. It is true that not all of them earn between £7,000 and £8,000, but even a junior pilot who comes out of training school is earning over £2,300 a year.
I should have thought that the pilots of all people—intelligent, educated, expert men in their own field—could have resolved their differences without taking go-slow action at a time when people are going away on their Easter holidays. I appeal to them that the effects of the go-slow, in so far as it begins, should be muted over the holiday period, that they should not take advantage of their go-slow in the early days to disrupt the public.
If they do, it will mean a number of things. First, the public will be completely disenchanted with their case in any event. They will not be very impressed by people earning that sort of money taking extreme action to press their case for a percentage rise much beyond what is being given nationally and what is the norm. Secondly, they will do damage to their own airline, which gives them good conditions of work and of which I believe any one of them would say he was justly proud. Thirdly, they will lose a large amount of business for B.E.A., because clearly even at this time many people will switch to other airlines run by other countries, such as Air France and a number of others that run across the same routes. That will only add to the existing losses, making it difficult in the long run for the airline to give the kind of wage rises that would be accepted as normal and would be generally acceptable.
The pilots also make it particularly difficult for other people working for the airline. Airlines do not consist merely of those who fly aeroplanes. The pilots are backed up by very large staffs whose work benefits the service. They serve the public in all sorts of ways. If the pilots disrupt the service to force their claim, the airline will have to examine the pay claims of other people earning a good deal less, right down the line. B.E.A. has said that it cannot afford to give the pilots too high an increase in isolation or to give a large rise to the whole of its staff. It has indicated that it is prepared to be reasonable.
Seeking to disrupt the public at holiday time, taking them for a ride—or preventing them from going for a ride if they are going away for their Easter holidays—is not generally acceptable. I hope that the B.E.A. pilots and the British Air Line Pilots Association, which represents


them, will recognise that they have a responsibility to the public, particularly the travelling public, to the airline they serve and to the other staffs employed in it. I hope they will desist from the kind of activity we have known in the past and which is again threatened this Easter.

11.35 a.m.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Yesterday I asked at Business Question time for time to be found to debate the very important report received that day from the Expenditure Committee on private practice and the National Health Service. I raise the matter today because such controversial reports are hot news for a short time when they arrive, but if the Government defer the debate on them the temperature dies down, and the points to which we wish to draw attention are much more difficult to make once the pressure has gone off.
I am protesting against the report as an abuse of the House. I accept that it is within the rules of order. The way in which a Select Committee works cannot be altered from the Floor of the House; it is done through the usual procedural ways.
The report had to be agreed. Because the subject was highly controversial, the minority on the Committee could not put in it matters that it was the object of the exercise to discuss when the subject was chosen. The Opposition moved 16 amendments, all of which were defeated, as must happen because of our procedure.
But there is sufficient material to cause concern, especially in the evidence from junior hospital doctors. There is the problem, which will affect many of our constituents, of queue-jumping, with a deferred service for others, merely because a consultant is part time and not full time. The problem is particularly acute in gynaecology, where private practice impinges perhaps the most on middle-aged females. Because it is possible to obtain private treatment, such patients can obtain a bed more quickly. Their illnesses are not of the kind from which they are likely to die, but they are in acute discomfort, and they can suffer it for six to 10 months. Any hon. Member who checks his local hospital waiting lists will find that that the gynaecological list is usually the longest. But the private

patient can obtain a bed very quickly, and it is worth paying a fee to the consultant to lose the discomfort.
The report reveals an abuse of the National Health Service in that although the patient may pay the consultant a fee she does not of necessity have a private bed. She may have a National Health Service bed, because the consultant is the only person to decide on the admission. The evidence from the Junior Hospital Doctors' Association, the Socialist Medical Association and the Medical Practitioners' Union shows that there is a widespread abuse, and the matter needs to be discussed.
Therefore, I am asking that we should have a debate rather than go away for the Easter Recess, although I am certain that after a long sitting I should not be too popular if my request were granted. I sometimes wonder what would happen if the House decided that we should not go away but should come in on the first day of the Recess to discuss something like private practice or the airline pilots.
It gives us the opportunity from the back benches to say as strongly as we can to the Government that here is an issue affecting millions of our people. We are talking mainly in terms of our constituents. This is an issue which is supremely important and, even after a long night's sitting, is worthy of bringing to the attention of the House. I urge the Government, even though we decide to pass this Motion and adjourn, to find time for a debate as soon as we get back, before this subject gets cold.
There is a first-class leader in The Guardian today giving a good deal of the general feeling about this and saying that the general feeling of the country may well be out of line with the findings of the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee. It is right that the House should discuss this important report.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There are two issues which I seek to raise initially and which I can put quite crisply. First there is a proposal, which must be dealt with as a matter of urgency, to close down school camps in Scotland. This would be a great pity at the moment because, as prices rise, it becomes more and more difficult for many children who


had previously gone abroad on educational cruises to have this kind of holiday. It is absolute folly that good camps which have served the community for many years and which are in good condition should be closed down.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office, to whom I gave warning that I would raise this subject, is sympathetic. I ask the acting Leader of the House to pass on the request that this should be reconsidered because it is a matter of urgency.
The second matter I wish to raise concerns the House as a whole and the question I put to the acting Leader of the House yesterday on the timing of a debate on the Report of the Rothschild Committee. The other place has had two full days of debate on this highly controversial report on the Research Councils. It looks as though the House of Commons is not to have any chance, even for half a day, to express a view until such time as decisions are made. It was put forward as a Green Paper and, although the Government must be very pressed for time, it is extremely unsatisfactory that on such a contentious issue which not only filled the correspondence columns of The Times for many weeks but which affects a great many of my constituents, we should not be able to find time for a debate.
Anyone who has been to a meeting of a research council knows what I am talking about. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) is a member of the Medical Research Council and he knows that this matter affects the future of a great many people. It is extremely unsatisfactory that the other place should have debated this for two days yet it looks as if we shall not get any satisfaction in our fight to have a debate before the White Paper is published.
The third issue is something that may seem a bit esoteric, at least for the House of Commons but it is certainly not esoteric for sectors of British industry. It is a subject on which I had hoped to question the Prime Minister at Question Time today, had that been possible, and it concerns the decision on the answer we have to give to the Americans whether this country does or does not participate in America's post-Apollo programme. The reason why I raise this is that a

decision is becoming more and more urgent. This is concerned with a programme of 5,500 million dollars. It also concerns the whole future of the electronics industry in this country.
Specifically I have tried to pursue it through every parliamentary opportunity available, including resorting to tabling 40 oral Questions, which I do not normally do, to the Ministry of Defence so that it should at least be discussed in Whitehall. To be frank with the acting Leader of the House, I gather that since I did this there has been some serious discussion for the first time in the higher echelons of the Government machine. I took the opportunity during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill to raise this and to point out certain inaccuracies given, albeit unwittingly, by the Under-secretary of State for Trade and Industry in his wind-up speech. In the course of this speech the Minister said:
This programme has had presidential approval but has yet to go through Congress, and it is anyone's guess what shape it will be in when it leaves Congress.
If the Government believe that they will be relieved of having to make a decision on this issue by an adverse Congress vote in the coming months they will be disappointed. The information from the States, from the State Department, N.A.S.A., the Pentagon and industry all suggests that the opposition in Congress will be nothing like as strong as that against the S.S.T. and that it will be overcome. I do not think that the Government can take refuge in thinking that it will never happen.
The Minister went on to say a little later, referring to the original offer from the United States to Europe and other countries:
No suggestions were made as to the type or extent of the participation.
This is an extraordinary thing to say since the proposal made by the Americans was specifically to the effect that European companies should join with the American sub-contractors in the phase B part of the programme which was then about to start and that European countries could also in the meantime, if they wished, study such things as the Tug. There were several visits by senior N.A.S.A. officials to Governments and industry in Europe to clarify their proposals and it was on the basis of these


visits and corresponding visits made by B.A.C. and Hawker Siddeley to the United States that B.A.C. took the initiative in the summer of 1970 to join North American Rockwell and General Dynamics in the phase B study. That is definitely inaccurate.
The Minister said later:
…in financial and resource terms Europe has not yet got a precise offer to which to respond…".
This is an incredible statement to make bearing in mind that N.A.S.A. sent senior missions over to Europe in December, 1971, and in February, 1972, to explain in detail to the European Communities the precise nature of the offer it was making. This included spelling out in detail the particular packages on the shuttle on which it thought participation by European companies was practicable. Among these packages were the three packages which B.A.C. identified in the course of its work with North American Rockwell and for which B.A.C. carried the entire responsibility in the final report which North American Rockwell submitted to N.A.S.A. at the end of phase B.
The Minister went on:
The Government are currently considering whether the United Kingdom should participate in these further studies.
This is precisely the point on which France and Germany have already agreed to provide some funding of their companies, and the failure of the British Government to reach a decision is greatly handicapping us in our negotiations with European companies on the studies required. In the penultimate paragraph of his speech, referring to B.A.C. and Hawker Siddeley the Minister said:
…both organisations have sub-contracts from two of the American prime contractors and have been carrying out feasibility studies on the shuttle."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1972; Vol. 833, c. 1301–3.]
The Government will be aware that there have been no sub-contracts from the American prime contractors to either B.A.C. or Hawker Siddeley and the work which both companies did was directed towards finding suitable work packages and assessing the case for and against continuing participation. There was never any question of British companies carrying out feasibility studies on the shuttle.
I would not bother the House with this were it not for the fact that there are important centres of the British electronics industry involved, leaving aside Hawker Siddeley and B.A.C, who feel that until last month at any rate there has been considerable indecision in the Government machine. If anyone doubts the importance of this subject there are those in the technical sphere in this country who say that just as we perhaps missed our chance in Messina in 1955 so again we may, technically rather than politically, perhaps be missing our chance in not paying sufficient attention to the American offer on the big air sortie module because if we do not make up our minds by the summer they will go ahead without us.
Finally, a matter I wished to put to the Prime Minister today, and have done in writing and elsewhere, is that if there are problems with the machinery of government then the Department of Trade and Industry has far too much to do. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) present. He may reflect that it is strange that a Secretary of State who has to deal with the troubles of the Vehicle and General Insurance Company, with shipbuilding and a myriad of other problems should also have to deal with this matter. Perhaps it would be much better if it were placed in the Defence Department. Participation in space would give incentives to potential high-grade technical recruits to the R.A.F.
The assurance which I hope the right hon. Gentlemen will give is that a senior member of the Government, either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Defence, will give his mind to what is happening in the lower echelons in Whitehall and Westminster and consider what sort of response this country ought to be giving to the Americans. If I have that assurance, I shall be happy, and so will British industry, which is more important.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I rise only to say that I support the case put by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) because I have two constituents in the same position as his constituents, both losing their savings on a small house by this rule. I hope that my right hon. Friend the acting Leader of the


House will impress on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that this feeling is not confined to right hon. and hon. Members opposite but is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House as well.

11.51 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As acting Leader of the House of Commons I am replying to the debate, but I am doing so as a very temporary Leader of the House as I must make clear. I shall, of course, make it my business to pass on all the points raised in the debate to the new Leader of the House when he is appointed.
On the procedural point, I sympathise with what was said by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). I would only point out to him that an exceptional situation made it necessary to proceed in this way. I could not guarantee that such an exceptional situation might not occur in the future. It arose in this case because of the Northern Ireland situation intervening in the Budget debate. Although one cannot guarantee that such a situation will not occur again, we shall of course try to avoid it.
I will, of course, discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the hard case quoted by the hon. Member for Brixton and by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer). I sympathise with the considerable discomfort and disquiet of those concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) raised the question of the dispute between B.E.A. and the British Air Line Pilots Association which comes at an extremely inconvenient time for the public. I am sure the House would regret the disruption of airline services over the Easter period. My hon. Friend may be aware that, following the recommendation of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport on 27th March, the Department of Employment invited the representatives of both sides to discuss their differences under the Department's chairmanship. I am afraid that this was not successful. The association made it clear that it was only prepared to meet B.E.A.

if the Corporation had made a further offer. Not surprisingly, this in turn was not acceptable to the corporation. The Department felt that no agreed means could be found for resolving the issue, although it informed both the association and the corporation that it remained ready to give whatever assistance the parties might find helpful. I hope that both parties to the dispute—in particular, those who do not seem to want to go ahead and discuss—will think again, not only in the interests of the travelling public, which are very great, but in the interests of the other people also employed in B.E.A. and in the interests of the future of the airline itself, which is the foundation of the living standards of all it employs.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) raised again the question of the Report of the Select Committee on Hospital Services and made some powerful, substantial points in arguing that this had to be dealt with before the House rose today. Obviously, this is a matter that gives cause for concern among hon. Members opposite and is of great interest to the public. I will certainly represent to the new Leader of the House the feeling that there should be a debate at the earliest opportunity it is possible to arrange one.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised three points. The first concerned the closing of school camps in Scotland, which I will refer to my right hon. Friend concerned. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Rothschild Report, which he is anxious to debate. As he said, the other place has had more than one discussion of it and, if I may say so, seems to have had a rumbustious time in doing so. It is an important matter and I can only say now that I will pass on his representations to the new Leader of the House.
The hon. Gentleman's third point concerned the post-Apollo programme. We in the Government are well aware of this problem. It is a complicated matter both in technical detail and possible financial commitment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole are well aware of the importance of the issue.

Mr. Dalyell: I would like an assurance for those with whom I have been working in British industry that the Prime Minister is taking a deep personal interest and that he will get advice not only from senior members of the Civil Service, who may not be advised about the details, but also from the middle ranks.

Mr. Maudling: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take advice from any source he considers appropriate. I can certainly give him the assurance of my right hon. Friend's personal interest and keen awareness of the importance of the matter.

Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring the matters I raised for debate to the new Leader of the House, whoever he may be. Will he also discuss with his colleagues the other point I raised—that the whole question of a Select Committee being a watchdog on the Government and being able to be critical of the Government becomes a little upside-down when the case is the other way round?

Mr. Maudling: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not mentioning that point. I had intended to say that I would naturally pass on his views to the new Leader of the House as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, 10th April.

Mr. Speaker: I propose to suspend the sitting, and for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members the Division bells will ring shortly before the sitting resumes.

Sitting suspended at 11.55 a.m.

Sitting resumed.

12.51 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
The Lords have agreed to the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill, without amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Sunday Cinema Act, 1972.
2. Road Traffic Act, 1972.
3. Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act, 1972.
4. Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1972.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

S.S. "NORTHERN STAR" (MISSING SEAMAN)

12.53 p.m.

Mr. John Hannam: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity of raising a serious matter relating to the procedures of inquiry following the disappearance at sea of a crew member of a merchant ship. I became aware of some deficiencies in the existing systems following the tragic death on 17th August, 1970, of a young constituent, Mr. Jeffrey Keith Wills.
This young man, in his teens, had served happily in the local sea cadets and had recently joined the Shaw Savill cruise liner s.s. "Northern Star" for a Mediterranean cruise. His letters, which I was shown by his mother, who is here today, were enthusiastic and happy and stated how much he was looking forward to the voyage and to taking the various seamanship examinations which would advance his career as a merchant seaman.
It therefore came as a great shock to Mr. and Mrs. Wills when on 20th August, 1970, a letter was received from the shipping company informing them that their son had been lost overboard on 18th August. Subsequently on 25th August a further letter was received from the Cardiff office of the Registrar-General of the Board of Trade shipping office. This informed the parents of the loss of their son, and this time the date quoted was 17th August. This letter told them of the procedure whereby an inquiry would


be held at the port of discharge of the ship's crew.
On 3rd September Mr. and Mrs. Wills came to me and told me of their extreme disquiet at the lack of information which they, as parents, had been able to obtain concerning the circumstances surrounding their son's disappearance. They had visited the ship on its return to Southampton on 14th September and found to their dismay that various items belonging to their son had disappeared. They also found that members of the crew who might have helped them in finding out the true facts had been paid off.
They were told by the captain that two days out in the Bay of Biscay Jeffrey had gone on watch from 8 p.m. to midnight but at 10 p.m. had been taken off watch and sent to No. 2 deck of the "Northern Star" with three others to scrub decks. At five minutes past 10 he stated that he felt ill and went below to the toilet. There was then a complete blank, and it was not until 8 a.m. the next morning that his bed was found to be unslept in.
Mr. and Mrs. Wills asked why no one had checked his absence from duty between 10.5 p.m. and midnight and why a signal had not been sent out to other ships and a search made. The weather was good and the sea calm. No satisfactory answers were given by the master of the ship, and, understandably, these disturbed and deeply distressed parents looked to the Board of Trade inquiry for some answers and an explanation of their son's death. They had been informed also that the statements taken on board the ship by consular staff at Madeira were private and confidential and that they could not see them. One can understand their feeling that a wall was being erected between them and the truth. There was still a doubt even that a public inquiry would be held.
On 10th September, 1970, I wrote to the Registrar-General calling for a full inquiry and asking that certain questions put to me should be asked. An inquiry was held on 10th October under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The following week Mr. and Mrs. Wills came to see me and, in a very distressed state, complained at the form of the inquiry and the lack of cross-examination of the witnesses. They were con-

vinced that false evidence had been presented, yet were not able to ask certain questions themselves at the inquiry. Subsequent inquiries substantiated their fears, as I will explain later.
They then wrote to the Registrar-General asking for a copy of the proceedings and were informed that these were available at a fee of £2 4s. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade immediately countermanded this and arranged for a copy to be sent to the bereaved parents. This was received on 1st December, 1970.
The President of the Exeter Sea Cadets, Mr. Steele-Perkins, also a lawyer, examined the transcript of the inquiry proceedings and agreed that there were several inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the crew. These inconsistencies related to the last time that Jeffrey was seen by the crew members. One of the crew, a Mr. Arnold, stated that he had not seen him after 9 p.m., whereas the bosun, who was in charge of the watch, stated that he had seen him at 10 p.m. with Mr. Arnold and had chatted to them. This leaves a gap of one hour in the key evidence—and yet no cross-examination.
Another discrepancy occurred concerning Jeffrey Wills' shoes. These were hard-soled shoes, unsuitable for deck work. These were found near the swimming pool, under a lifeboat. An experienced 55-year-old crew member, Mr. Murphy, when questioned, stated that he was asked by the bosun whether he knew who owned the shoes and he replied that he did not. Yet the bosun, in his evidence, stated that Murphy said they were the deceased's shoes—again no cross-examination.
These facts were put to my hon. Friend and also reported to Scotland Yard, and on 23rd June, 1971, I was pleased to receive an extremely helpful letter from the Under-Secretary informing me that the Hampshire and Isle of Wight police were carrying out further investigations.
In the meantime, it was noticed in various Press reports that several other serious incidents of missing crew members had occurred. In fact, between January, 1970, and June, 1971, four persons had been reported missing from the two sister ships, "Southern Cross" and "Northern Star". No wonder that


we were all extremely concerned. I am happy to say that subsequent inquiries established that there was no connection between these four missing persons.
Police inquiries continued during last summer, and in October the parents were informed personally by the police officers that their investigations had produced new evidence to the effect that heavy drinking had taken place on the afternoon of 17th August when the ship called at Vigo. This drinking continued on board right up until duty commenced at 8 p.m. The extent of this drinking was not revealed at either the inquiry held on board ship or the Southampton inquiry. It is obvious that there are serious flaws in the present system of statutory inquiry procedures into death at sea, because the truth does not necessarily come out.
My experience in assisting the parents of the boy lost in this tragic case convinces me that there is a need for tightening up discipline and supervision on board and the procedures of the inquiries, and I should like to put forward some constructive suggestions for my hon. Friend's consideration.
First, I believe there should be a regulation that when any man on duty on board ship is known to be missing and absent from his post, as Jeffrey Wills was from 10 p.m. to midnight, that fact should be reported at once to the senior duty officer and thence to the captain so that the ship can be turned about immediately and inquiries set afoot. In this case there was a delay of over 10 hours, and even then only flimsy inquiries were made.
Secondly, the formal inquiry on board ship should have particular regard to the state of health of the missing person. It seems reprehensible to me that on a properly disciplined ship the crew should be allowed to go on duty in a drunken state.
Thirdly, I believe that there should be a procedure whereby the next of kin of anyone missing at sea should be notified immediately after the event becomes a fact and should be kept informed of the exact timing of the docking of the ship at the next and nearest English port, when the next-of-kin and, if necessary, a solicitor and the local C.I.D. should be allowed to go on board before anyone concerned with the incident or who was a witness at the inquiry with the ship's captain is allowed to go ashore.
Fourthly, the board of inquiry procedure on land should be overhauled. All evidence should be taken on oath and the witnesses should not be in the room at the same time as any of the preceding witnesses, and the next-of-kin of the missing person should be allowed to be represented by a lawyer. But in any event either the next-of-kin or the lawyer on his or her behalf should have the right of cross-examination in the normal manner. Likewise, the solicitors or next-of-kin should have the right of address to the court before the inquiry makes its findings.
Finally, a copy of the findings and all the evidence should be submitted to the solicitors for the next-of-kin or to the next-of-kin themselves immediately after the hearing so that any appeal can be lodged immediately while the evidence is fresh in the mind of all concerned.
This is an extremely tragic case of a young man of happy disposition and keen seafaring interest who, two days out from home, disappeared whilst on duty. Some of his belongings disappeared and no alarm was given for 10 hours. No search was made and no evidence was forthcoming as to the circumstances of his death. It is a truly distressing and long-drawn-out agony for the parents, who will never know exactly how their boy died, but who, I know, will feel happier if steps are taken to prevent such distress being caused to other next-of-kin. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has been of great assistance during this 18-month ordeal, will be able to give an assurance that the fullest possible consideration will be given to the points raised today.

1.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): In replying to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. John Hannam) in connection with the inquiries made into the circumstances of the disappearance at sea of Jeffrey Keith Wills from the "Northern Star", I should first like to express my deepest sympathy with his parents on their very sad loss. I also wish to pay tribute to the diligence and energy of my hon. Friend, who has pursued the interests of his constituents in their sad circumstances in accordance with the highest traditions of a Member of Parliament.
It might be helpful if I were to explain briefly the statutory requirements which apply when a death takes place on board a British ship or a person disappears from a British ship whilst at sea. Section 690 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that the superintendent at the port at which the crew of the ship is discharged shall inquire into the death and endorse the entry in the ship's official log as to the cause of death either as being, in his opinion, a true statement or the contrary, according to the result of the inquiry.
If, in the course of the inquiry, it appears to the superintendent that any such death has been caused by violence or other improper means he is required to take steps to bring the offender or offenders to justice. In practice, in any case in which there is suspicion of violence or other improper action superintendents notify the police authorities who then are able, if they consider the circumstances so warrant, to carry out independent inquiries, and they can also be represented at the statutory inquiry.
The present procedure is considered to have many advantages and to operate in the best interests of all concerned. The superintendent's duties keep him in constant touch with shipping and seamen and he can arrange expeditiously the holding of a death inquiry at a convenient time and place when the ship reaches port and before the witnesses disperse. The superintendent invariably notifies the next-of-kin and other interested parties in advance so that they may have the opportunity of attending the inquiry and asking questions. Experience has shown that these arrangements have in general proved to be effective over a long period.
For that reason similar provisions to those currently applicable under the 1894 Act were incorporated in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, with the important different that provision was made which enables the statutory inquiry to be held by a superintendent or proper officer at the next port where the ship calls after the death, where there is such an officer, instead of awaiting its return to the United Kingdom where the crew is usually discharged. One of the reasons for this was to have evidence taken while the witnesses' memories of the events were still fresh in their minds. Nevertheless, there may be occasions when it is con-

sidered desirable to defer the holding of the statutory inquiry until the ship reaches the United Kingdom if no serious delay is involved.
One question which has been considered in the past is whether the law should be altered to provide that death inquiries should be replaced by coroners' inquests. This would give rise to many practical difficulties, and it is of interest to note that the Brodrick Committee on Death Certification and Coroners which reported in September, 1971, considered the possibility of inquiries into deaths at sea being carried out by coroners but decided against recommending such a change.
Perhaps the most difficult situations facing superintendents in establishing the full facts are those cases in which a person has disappeared at sea unseen, as in the case of Jeffrey Wills. These cases average about 30 a year. There is a good deal of speculation in some of them as to precisely what happened at the time of disappearance and it is inevitable that at times one cannot be absolutely certain that the full facts have been established. An important factor, however, is that the superintendents notify the police authorities concerning any case where there appears to be any suspicion of foul play so that, apart from the statutory inquiry, they may investigate the situation if they consider it appropriate to do so.
In the Wills case, I am satisfied that the superintendent at Southampton carried out the inquiry in a proper manner in compliance with the provisions of the Act and his departmental instructions. The police authorities at Southampton were notified at an early stage. They not only carried out their own investigations on the ship when it reached port, but they were also represented at the inquiry when the superintendent, in the light of the inquiry, reached the conclusion that the entry in the official log of the "Northern Star" recording that Mr. Wills was
Missing at sea, presumably killed or drowned
was correct. Although it later became apparent from subsequent investigations carried out by the Hampshire Constabulary that some of the witnesses at the statutory inquiry had not revealed the full fact or the full extent of the drinking which took place among some of them,


including Jeffrey Wills, prior to the latter's disappearance, the police expressed the view—which I share—that had this information been revealed at the time of the inquiry it would not have altered the findings.
This is not to say that I condone the action of the witnesses, but clearly it is difficult to see what changes could be made in the instructions to superintendents to enable them to elicit information which witnesses may decide to withhold even when on oath. What was more important in this case, however, was that the police reached the firm conclusion that there was no reason whatsoever to suspect foul play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter raised the question of standards of discipline on board merchant ships. These are a matter for ships' masters, often within the framework of company regulations, but it should be borne in mind that there is a significant difference between the environment of employment on a merchant ship and service in, for instance, the Royal Navy. The professional officers of my Department have considered this case very carefully and have formed the opinion that there was nothing lax about the discipline on the "Northern Star" as regards the arrangements for coming on and going off watch.
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the undesirability of allowing drunken persons to go on watch. This must be a matter for those in charge. In his statement at the Southampton inquiry, the bosun in charge said that in his opinion Mr. Wills was fit to stand watch. He also made a statement subsequently to the police in which he said that, at the start of the watch, although three seamen, including Mr. Wills, had had a fair amount to drink, they were not drunk and he felt that they were capable of doing their job. The statements made by witnesses at the statutory inquiries are always made on oath. Any interested person can attend and be represented and may put reasonable questions to witnesses.
I should like now to turn to the question of the alleged missing items of Jeffrey Wills' effects. It is the responsibility of my Department to deliver to the person legally entitled to receive it—in this case Mrs. Wills, his mother—property

received from a ship's master and belonging to a deceased seaman. The superintendent at Southampton on 2nd September, 1970, received a duffel bag and two padlocked grips containing Jeffrey Wills' effects and arrangements were made for her to receive them at the Southampton office, where they were opened in her presence on 14th September, 1970. I am satisfied that my Department took all possible steps to ensure that these effects were delivered to her as received.
I also note my hon. Friend's point about Mrs. Wills not being advised of the exact time of arrival of the "Northern Star", but my Department's responsibility is to hold inquiries into deaths at sea and to give due notice of the inquiry to the next-of-kin and any other person known to be interested. I am satisfied that this was done.
On careful investigation, I am satisfied that the circumstances of Jeffrey Wills' death have been fully and properly investigated and that every effort has been made to deal with the points subsequently raised with my Department. I have no doubt on the information before me and the advice that I have received that he died as a result of falling overboard on 17th August, 1970, and that the findings that he was "missing at sea, presumed killed or drowned" are correct. I can fully understand that the position is less than satisfactory for his unfortunate parents in the absence of a full explanation of a most tragic death. But, regrettably, it is not always possible, because of their nature, to reach a fully proven conclusion in cases of unwitnessed disappearances at sea.
However, I note carefully the helpful and thoughtful comments of my hon. Friend on the general position of inquiries in cases like this. I assure him and the House that we are carefully reviewing the current procedures for carrying out death inquiries, particularly the instructions to superintendents, in order to see what improvements, if any, can be made in the present arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly on Thursday afternoon at fourteen minutes past One o'clock till Monday, 10th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.